PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM  FOR 
THE  MANUFACTURE  OF  HEROIN 


fd vv1  U , S . 

ZH;  HEARINGS 

i . . 

V--  ^ BEFOBB  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS 
HOUSE  OF  EEPRESENTATIVJS 


H.  R.  7079 

A BILL  PEOHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF 
CRUDE  OPIUM  FOR  THE  PURPOSE  OF 
MANUFACTURING  HEROIN 


APRIL  3,  1924 


96182 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1924 


COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS 

House  of  Representatives 

SIXTY-EIGHTH  CONGRESS,  FIRST  SESSION 
WILLIAM  R.  GREEN,  Iowa,  Chairman 


WILLIS  C.  HAWLEY,  Oregon. 

ALLEN  T.  TREADWAY,  Massachusetts. 


GEORGE  M.  YOUNG,  North  Dakota. 
JAMES  A.  FREAR,  Wisconsin. 

JOHN  Q.  TILSON,  Connecticut. 

ISAAC  BACHARACH,  New  Jersey. 
LINDLEY  H.  HADLEY,  Washington. 
CHARLES  B.  TIMBERLAKE,  Colorado. 
HENRY  W.  WATSON,  Pennsylvania. 
OGDEN  L.  MILLS,  New  York. 

JAMES  C.  McLaughlin,  Michigan. 
CHARLES  C.  KEARNS,  Ohio. 

CARL  R.  CHINDBLOM,  Illinois. 
FRANK  CROWTHER,  New  York. 


JOHN  N.  GARNER,  Texas. 

JAMES  W.  COLLIER,  Mississippi. 
WILLIAM  A.  OLDFIELD,  Arkansas. 
CHARLES  R.  CRISP,  Georgia. 

JOHN  F.  CAREW,  New  York. 
WHITMELL  P.  MARTIN,  Louisiana. 
PETER  F.  TAGUE,  Massachusetts. 
HENRY  T.  RAINEY,  lUinois. 
CORDELL  HULL,  Tennessee. 
CLEMENT  C.  DICKINSON,  Missouri. 
JOHN  J.  CASEY,  Pennsylvania. 


CiATTON  F.  Moore,  Clerk 


CONTENTS 


Statements  of — 

Blue,  Dr.  Rupert,  United  States  Public  Health  Service 28,  30 

Brewster,  Sidney  W.,  assistant  superintendent  and  deputy  warden, 

Reformatory  Prison,  Harts  Island,  New  York  City 45 

Porter,  Hon.  Stepherr  G.,  a Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State 

of  Pennsylvania 1 

Richardson,  Dr.  Charles  W.,  Washington,  D.  C 10 

Squires,  Dr.  Amos  O.,  chief  physician,  Sing  Sing  Prison,  Ossining, 

N.  Y 19 

nr 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/prohibitingopiumOOunit 


PBOHIBITINGf  THE  IMPOETATIOH  OP  OPIUM  FOE  THE 
MANUFACTUEE  OF  HEEOIN 


Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives, 

Thursday,  April  3,  1924. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Willis  C.  Hawley 
presiding. 

Mr.  Hawley.  You  may  proceed,  if  you  are  ready,  Mr.  Porter. 
I might  state,  this  is  a hearing  on  H.  R.  7079,  introduced  by  Mr. 
Porter,  proposing  amendments  to  the  act  of  January  14,  1914,  and 
amendments  thereto,  prohibiting  the  importation  of  crude  opium 
for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  heroin. 

Mr.  Porter,  we  will  be  glad  to  hear  what  you  have  to  present. 

(The  bill  referred  to  is  as  follows :) 

[H.  R.  7079,  Sixty-eighth  Congress,  first  session] 

A BILL  Prohibiting  the  importation  of  crude  opium  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  heroin 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of 
America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  subsection  (b)  of  section  2 of  the  act  of 
February  9,  1909,  as  amended  by  the  acts  of  January  14,  1914,  and  May  26, 
1922,  entitled  “The  narcotic  drugs  import  and  export  act,”  be  further  amended 
by  the  addition  of  the  following  sentence: 

“Provided,  That  no  crude  opium  may  be  imported  for  the  purpose  of  manu- 
facturing heroin.” 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  STEPHEN  G.  PORTER,  A REPRESENTA- 
TIVE IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr.  Porter.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
shall  content  myself  with  a very  brief  opening.  I merely  desire  to 
state  that  heroin  is  made  by  the  use.  of  acetic  acid  on  morphia. 
Morphia,  as  you  know,  is  the  active  principle  of  opium. 

Opium  has  been  recognized  from  time  immemorial  as  a narcotic. 
Its  value  or  the  value  of  its  derivatives,  in  medication,  has  been 
recognized  for  centuries;  in  fact,  it  has  often  been  said  that  the 
practice  of  medicine  without  the  aid  of  opium  or  its  derivatives 
would  be  a very  unhappy  calling  indeed.  For  a century  and  upwards 
the  profession  has  been  trying  to  find  a substitute  for  morphia,  a 
substitute  that  would  not  have  the  distressing  after  affects  which 
morphia  produces,  especially  the  danger  from  habit  forming.  Many 
substitutes  have  been  proposed,  but  they  have  all  resulted  in  failure. 

In  1898  a German  chemist  subjected  morphia  to  the  action  of 
acetic  acid  and  produced  a drug  called  “heroin,”  It  was  widely 
advertised  as  the  long-sought-for  substitute  for  morphia,  but  within 
two  years,  as  I expect  to  show  you,  the  men  who  discovered  the 

1 


2 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


remedy  warned  the  world  that  it  was  a very  dangerous  drug  and 
habit  forming.  It  was  advertised  extensively  especially  throughout 
the  United  States,  and  the  testimony  to  be  offered  will  disclose  that 
it  is  the  most  dangerous  of  all  the  habit-forming  drugs;  some 
authorities  going  even  so  far  as  to  claim  that  it  causes  an  organic 
change  in  the  nerve  cells.  That  it  is  responsible  for  a large  amount  of 
crime  is  hardly  open  to  question.  I have  before  me  replies  to  a 
questionnaire  which  I sent  out  to  many  of  the  penal  institutions  of  the 
country  which  will  confirm  this  statement. 

I shall  be  quite  brief,  so  far  as  the  testimony  is  concerned,  and 
content  myself  with  offering  a number  of  official  orders  and  opinions 
of  many  noted  physicians  and  criminologists.  I might  add  that  the 
medical  profession  looks  upon  heroin  as  a very  dangerous  drug  and 
a comparatively  useless  drug.  The  Army,  the  Navy,  the  Public 
Health  Service,  the  Veterans’  Bureau,  and  the  American  Medical 
Association  have  all  condemned  its  use  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
entirely  too  dangerous  and  has  no  medicinal  value  that  can  not  be 
supplied  by  codein  or  other  drugs. 

The  first  order  is  of  December  2,  1916,  circular  letter  No.  102, 
by  the  Public  Health  Service ; 

Treasury  Department, 

Bureau  of  the  Public  Health  Service, 

Washington,  December  2,  1916. 

BUREAU  CIRCULAR  LETTER  NO.  102 DISCONTINUE  THE  USE  OF  HEROIN 

Medical  officers,  acting  assistant  surgeons,  and  others  concerned: 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  great  increase  in  the  use  of  heroin  at  present  con- 
stitutes a considerable  menace  to  public  health  in  the  United  States,  it  is  desired 
to  set  an  example  and  to  signalize  to  the  general  public  the  danger  which  may 
accrue  from  its  use.  Heroin  as  a palliative  in  certain  respiratory  affections 
serves  no  purpose  which  can  not  be  accomplished  by  other  agents  fully  as  effec- 
tively and  without  the  attendant  possibility  of  grave  disaster. 

You  are  therefore  directed  to  discontinue  dispensing  heroin  and  its  salts  at 
relief  stations  of  the  service,  and  to  send  all  the  stock  of  these  drugs  now  on 
hand  to  the  purveying  depot,  1414  Pennsylvania  Avenue  NW.,  Washington, 
D.  C.,  either  by  parcel  post  or  by  freight  on  Government  bill  of  lading. 

Rupert  Blue,  Surgeon  General. 

Mr.  McLaughlin.  What  is  the  date  of  that? 

Mr.  Porter.  That  was  the  first  one,  December  2,  1916. 

On  February  2,  1924,  the  United  States  Navy  issued  the  following 
order : 

BY  UNITED  STATES  NAVY 

February  2,  1924. 

I have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  further  issues  of  heroin  to  the  United 
States  naval  service  have  been  prohibited. 

Surgeon  General,  United  States  Navy. 

The  United  States  Veterans’  Bureau  on  March  10,  1924,  made  the 
following  order: 

UNITED  STATES  VETERANS’  BUREAU  CIRCULAR  NO.  38 

Medical  and  Rehabilitation  Service, 

March  10,  1924- 

Subject:  Heroin. 

This  bureau  does  not  approve  of  the  administration  of  heroin  to  any  of  its 
beneficiaries.  This  decision  is  based  on  the  best  medical  authority.  Heroin 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


3 


shall  not  be  issued  in  future  to  any  member  or  unit  of  the  Veterans’  Bureau,  and 
such  stocks  as  may  be  on  hand  shall  be  forwarded  to  the  nearest  supply  depot. 

George  E.  Ijams,  Assistant  Director. 

On  December  29,  1923,  the  Medical  Department  of  the  United 
States  Army^issued^the  following  order: 

BY  UNITED  STATES  ARMY 

December  29,  1923. 

This  oiBce  does  not  approve  of  the  administration  of  heroin  to  any  member  of 
the  military  personnel.  Such  stocks  of  heroin  as  may  be  on  hand  at  posts, 
camps,  stations,  or  medical  supply  depots  will  be  destroyed  and  dropped  from 
the  stock  record  account  on  certificates  of  the  medical  supply  officer.  Heroin  is 
no  longer  issued  for  use  of  the  Medical  Department  of  the  Army. 

M.  W.  Ireland, 

Surgeon  General,  United  States  Army. 


Mr.  Watson.  Have  you  reports  of  medical  investigations  as  to 
the  use  of  the  drug? 

Mr.  Porter.  That  testimony  will  be  presented  later. 

On  March  25,  1918,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  McAdoo, 
appointed  a committee  to  investigate  the  traffic  in  narcotic  drugs. 
The  committee  filed  quite  a voluminous  report  and,  I desire  to  say, 
a very  valuable  one.  I found  it  quite  helpful  in  the  investigation 
which  we  have  been  making  in  regard  to  all  of  the  habit-forming  drugs. 
I desire  to  call  the  committee’s  attention  to  two  statements  in  that 
report. 

Mr.  McLaughlin.  Is  that  printed  as  a document? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes;  it  is  a Treasury  report  of  June,  1919.  On  page 
24  of  the  report  I find  this  statement:’ 

Most  of  the  heroin  addicts  are  comparatively  young,  a large  portion  of  them 
being  boys  and  girls  under  the  age  of  20.  This  is  also  true  of  cocaine  addicts, 
many  of  them,  according  to  reports,  being  mere  children. 

This  valuable  report  was  filed  in  1919.  The  committee,  of  which 
the  Hon.  Henry  T.  Rainey  was  chairman,  concluded  the  report  with 
this  statement: 


It  is  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  based  on  the  results  of  its  investigations, 
that  the  medical  need  for  heroin,  a derivative  of  morphine,  is  negligible  compared 
with  the  evil  effects  of  the  use  of  this  alkaloid,  and  that  it  can  easily  be  replaced 
one  of  the  other  alkaloids  of  opium  with  the  same  therapeutic  results,  and  with 
less  danger  of  creating  habituation.  Therefore,  consideration  should  be  given 
the  subject  of  absolutely  prohibiting  the  manufacture,  sale,  distribution,  or 
administration  of  this  most  dangerous  drug  by  the  States  and  municipalities. 

Respectfully, 


B.  R.  Rhees,  M.  D., 


Henry  T.  Rainey, 
Member  of  Congress,  Chairman. 
Reid  Hunt, 

Professor  of  Pharmacology,  Harvard  University. 

B.  C.  Keith, 

Deputy  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue. 

A.  G.  Du  Mez, 

United  States  Public  Health  Service,  Secretary. 


Clerk  to  Committee. 


Dr.  Alexander  Lambert,  of  New  York,  is  a noted  authority  on  this 
subject.  I did  not  think  it  necessary,  unless  the  committee  so 
desires,  to  call  him  to  testify,  because  I have  a statement  from  him 
on  the  subject  which  he  has  confirmed  by  letter,  which  I submit 
herewith  for  the  record. 


4 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OP  OPIUM 


(The  letter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 


February  11,  1924. 

Dr.  Alexander  Lambert, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

My  Dear  Doctor  Lambert:  It  is  my  purpose  within  the  next  few  days  to 
introduce  a bill  prohibiting  the  importation  of  opium  into  the  United  States  to  be 
used  for  the  manufacture  of  heroin.  I have  before  me  a memoranda  on  inter- 
national control  of  heroin  giving  the  opinions  of  many  reliable  authorities  that 
the  use  of  heroin  should  be  prohibited.  You  are  quoted  as  follows: 

“Heroin  cuts  off  the  sense  of  responsibility  in  the  moral  sense  much  quicker 
than  morphine.  It  destroys  the  sense  of  responsibility  to  the  herd.  Heroin 
addicts  will  more  quickly  commit  crime  and  with  no  sense  of  regret  or  responsi- 
bility for  it.  The  herd  instinct  is  obliterated  by  heroin,  and  the  herd  instincts 
are  the  ones  which  control  the  moral  sense  in  the  sense  of  responsibility  toward 
others  and  the  environment  in  general.  Heroin  obliterates  responsibility  the 
same  as  cocaine,  and  it  makes  much  quicker  the  muscular  reaction,  and  therefore 
is  used  by  criminals  to  inflate  them,  because  they  are  not  only  more  daring  but 
their  muscular  reflexes  are  quicker.” 

I am  writing  a similar  letter  to  all  of  the  other  authorities  quoted  in  the  memo- 
randa and  if  you  are  correctly  quoted  I intend  to  insert  your  views  in  the  record 
and  thus  avoid  the  necessity  of  inconveniencing  a great  many  people  who  other- 
wise would  be  asked  to  testify. 

If  you  desire  to  add  anything  to  what  you  have  already  said  on  the  subject,  I 
assure  you  the  committee  would  be  glad  to  have  the  benefit  of  such  addition.  A 
prompt  reply  will  be  appreciated,  as  the  hearings  will  begin  the  early  part  of 
next  week. 

Very  truly  yours, 


Stephen  G.  Porter, 

Chairman  Foreign  Affairs  Committee,  House  of  Representatives. 


New  York,  N.  Y.,  February  IS,  192^. 

Hon.  Stephen  G.  Porter, 

Chairman  Foreign  Affairs  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives. 

Dear  Mr.  Porter:  I am  in  receipt  of  your  letter,  and  corroborate  the  quo- 
tation which  you  make  from  my  writings  on  heroin. 

I am  always  glad  to  help  you  in  any  way  in  this  matter. 

Sincerely  yours. 


Alexander  Lambert. 


Mr.  William  McAdoo,  police  magistrate  of  New  York,  has  written 
a number  of  articles  on  the  subject,  and  a man  who  has  been  thrown 
in  contact  with  drug  addicts  perhaps  more  than  any  other  official 
in  the  country,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  officials  of  Sing 
Sing  prison  in  New  York  and  the  Toombs  Prison,  New  York.  My 
letter  and  his  reply  are  as  follows : 

February  11,  1924. 

Mr.  William  McAdoo, 

Chief  City  Magistrate,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

My  Dear  Mr.  McAdoo:  It  is  my  purpose  within  the  next  few  days  to  intro- 
duce a bill  prohibiting  the  importation  of  opium  into  the  United  States  to  be 
used  for  the  manufacture  of  heroin.  I have  before  me  a memoranda  on  inter- 
national control  of  heroin  giving  the  opinions  of  many  reliable  authorities  that 
the  use  of  heroin  should  be  prohibited.  You  are  quoted  as  foljows: 

“We  committed  last  year  from  this  office  about  900  drug  addicts  and  I should 
say  that  98  per  cent  are  users  of  heroin.  Very  rarely  do  we  run  across  a case 
where  the  addict  is  taking  morphine  or  cocaine.” 

I am  writing  a similar  letter  to  all  of  the  other  authorities  quoted  in  the  memo- 
randa and  if  you  are  correctly  quoted  I intend  to  insert  your  views  in  the  record 
and  thus  avoid  the  necessity  of  inconveniencing  a great  many  people,  who  other- 
wise would  be  asked  to  testify. 

If  you  desire  to  add  anything  to  what  you  have  already  said  on  the  subject,  I 
assure  you  the  committee  would  be  glad  to  have  the  benefit  of  such  addition. 


PKOHIBITING  THE  IMPOBTATION  OF  OPIUM 


5 


A prompt  reply  will  be  appreciated  as  the  hearings  will  begin  the  early  part  of 
next  week. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Stephen  G.  Porter, 

Chairman  Foreign  Affairs  Committee,  House  of  Representatives. 


City  of  New  York, 

City  Magistrates’  Courts, 

February  13,  1924- 

Hon.  Stephen  G.  Porter, 

Chairman  Foreign  Affairs  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Porter:  Certainly  you  can  quote  the  statement  made  by 
me  as  to  the  fact  that  98  per  cent  of  drug  addicts  are  using  heroin.  An  addict 
using  morphine  or  cocaine  is  so  rare  as  to  attract  attention. 

A few  weeks  ago  two  comparatively  young  men  came  into  this  office  self- 
complaining and  asking  to  be  committed  to  the  addict  colony  on  Piker’s  Island, 

, which  is  conducted  by  the  city  of  New  York.  I send  herewith  a description  of 
them  taken  from  a book  of  mine  which  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the  printers. 

Note  the  fact  that  these  two  men  went  deliberately  down  to  Mexico  to  get 
cheaper  and  unadulterated  heroin  and  that  the  heroin  they  bought  down  there 
had  the  label  of  large  American  drug  manufacturers  on  the  bottles,  as  if  it  had 
been  exported  into  that  country,  with  possibilities  of  being  smuggled  back  into 
the  United  States. 

I am  quite  convinced  that  if  the  United  States  will  distinctly  prohibit  the 
manufacture  of  heroin,  or  a similar  drug  under  any  name,  other  nations  will 
follow  the  example  or  else  have  to  tacitly  admit  that  the  drug  is  made  for  addicts 
and  not  for  medicinal  purposes. 

The  great  problem  with  regard  to  drug  addicts,  in  my  judgment,  is  to  prevent 
recruiting  the  ranks  of  the  present  large  menacing  and  dreadful  army  of  addicts; 
in  other  words,  to  make  it  as  nearly  as  practical  impossible  for  the  young  man 
or  woman  who  has  not  yet  taken  the  first  dose  of  heroin  to  procure  the  drug. 
The  clutch  of  the  drug  is  so  strong  that  it  is  pitiable  to  see  the  condition  of  the 
beginners,  especially  when  they  are  young  in  years. 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

William  McAdoo,  Chief  City  Magistrate. 

Two  young  men,  native  stock,  southern  born,  drug  addicts  for 
several  years,  find  that  heroin  can  be  bought  more  cheaply  in  Mexico 
than  here;  go  down  there  and  attempt  to  work  in  the  oil  fields;  get  as 
much  of  the  drug  unadulterated  for  $2  as  would  cost  $15  or  $20  up 
here;  dose  themselves  heavily  but  fail  in  their  work;  are  found  by  a 
charitable  American  who  paid  their  fare  on  the  steamboat  to  New 
York;  arriving  they  came  directly  to  this  office  on  a raw,  cold  Decem- 
ber day,  dressed  in  suits  that  looked  at  first  sight  like  pajamas,  collar 
of  the  jackets  held  up  to  their  necks  by  safety  pins;  tan  of  a southern 
sim  superimposed  over  pallid  and  emaciated  faces,  giving  them  a 
very  sickly  appearance;  say  the  drug  is  freely  peddled  in  Mexico 
and  is  bought  m bottles  bearing  the  stamp  of  well-known  manufac- 
turers in  this  country. 

Dr.  Herman  N.  Bundeson,  commissioner  of  health  of  Chicago,  says 
in  reply  to  my  letter: 

I think  criminologists  the  world  over  will  tell  you  that  the  violent  crimes  are 
the  ones  that  are  committed  by  heroin  addicts. 

(The  letters  follow:) 

February  11,  1924. 

Dr.  Herman  N.  Bundesen, 

Commissioner  of  Health,  Chicago,  III. 

My  Dear  Doctor  Bundesen:  It  is  my  purpose  within  the  next  few  days  to 
introduce  a bill  prohibiting  the  importation  of  opium  into  the  United  States  to 
be  used  for  the  manufacture  of  heroin.  I have  before  me  a memoranda  on 


6 


PEOHIBITING  THE  IMPOETATION"  OF  OPIUM 


international  control  of  heroin  givhng  the  opinions  of  many  reliable  authorities 
that  the  use  of  heroin  should  be  prohibited.  You  are  quoted  as  follows: 

“I  think  criminologists  the  world  over  will  tell  you  that  the  violent  crimes 
are  the  ones  that  are  committed  by  heroin  addicts.” 

I am  writing  a similar  letter  to  all  of  the  other  authorities  quoted  in  the  memo- 
randa and  if  you  are  correctly  quoted  I intend  to  insert  your  views  in  the  record 
and  thus  avoid  the  necessity  of  inconveniencing  a great  many  people,  who  other- 
wise would  be  asked  to  testify. 

If  you  desire  to  add  anjdhing  to  what  you  have  already  said  on  the  subject, 
I assure  you  the  committee  would  be  glad  to  have  the  benefit  of  such  addition. 
A prompt  reply  will  be  appreciated  as  the  hearings  will  begin  the  early  part  of 
next  week. 

Very  truly  yours, 


Stephen  G.  Porter, 

Chairman  Foreign  Affairs  Committee,  House  of  Representatives. 


City  op  Chicago, 
Department  of  Health, 

February  IS,  192 4-. 

Hon.  Stephen  G.  Porter, 

Chairman  Foreign  Affairs  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Porter:  Replying  to  your  letter  of  February  11,  I beg  leave 
to  advise  you  that  I am  inclosing  herewith  a copy  of  our  bulletin,  recently  issued, 
on  “The  menace  of  dope.”  I think  that  this  will  give  you  a fairly  clear  idea  of 
our  attitude  in  this  matter.  You  are  at  liberty  to  use  any  material  you  may 
wish  from  this  pamphlet. 

Thanking  you  for  the  magnificent  work  which  you  are  doing  in  the  control  of 
this  serious  menace  to  our  Nation,  and  with  kindest  personal  regards,  I beg  to 
remain 


Very  respectfully  yours. 


Herman  N.  Bundesen, 

Commissioner  of  Health. 


Mr.  Chindblom.  What  mental  effect  has  the  drug  upon  the  ■ 
addict  that  is  alluring  to  the  addict  ? 

Mr.  PoKTER.  The  drug  affects  no  two  people  exactly  alike.  It 
is  like  liquor  in  that  respect.  Dr.  Lambert,  in  the  hearings  on  H.  J. 
Res,  453,  February,  1923,  describes  the  effects  of  addiction  as  fol- 
lows; 

Doctor  Lambert.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Which  of  these  drugs,  heroin,  morphine,  codeine,  or  cocaine, 
is  the  most  destructive  on  human  life? 

Doctor  Lambert.  What  do  you  mean  by  destructive  of  life — which  will  kill 
the  quickest? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Doctor  Lambert.  Heroin  is  the  strongest.  It  is  about  three  times  as  strong 
as  morphine.  Cocaine  and  heroin  are  the  most  dangerous;  if  you  try  to  kill 
a person,  both  can  kill  very  quickly. 

The  Chairman.  Assume  a person  has  acquired  the  heroin  habit,  is  it  more 
injurious  to  his  health  than  the  cocaine  or  morphine  habit? 

Doctor  Lambert.  No;  cocaine  brings  an  insanit}^ — an  acute  insanity — with  it. 
But  heroin  and  cocaine  both  inflate  personality.  Cocaine  is  not  a narcotic;  it 
is  a pure  stimulant.  Heroin  inflates  the  personality  the  same  way  as  small 
amounts  of  alcohol  and  will  give  a sense  of  inflated,  happy  personality,  large 
ideas,  and  great  assurances  of  wished-for  accomplishments,  and  absolute 
assurance  that  one’s  own  personality  is  ever^'thing  that  one  wishes.  Cocaine 
does  that  same  thing  with  the  wishful  ideas  of  promises  coming  true.  That 
is  particularly  contained  in  cocaine,  and  heroin  also  has  this  effect. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  immediate  cause  of  death  of  addicts  to  these 
drugs? 

Doctor  Lambert.  Heroin  and  morphine  paralyze  the  respiratory  center,  and 
cocaine  will  paralyze  the  .heart. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  your  opinion  as  to  the  effect 
of  addiction  on  the  health  of  the  addict? 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


7 


Doctor  Lambert.  First,  in  small  doses,  for  a while  it  stimulates  the  person- 
ality; it  stimulates  the  sense  of  personality;  it  stimulates  the  ideas,  and  then 
it  produces  sleepiness  and  inhibits  actions.  Morphine  produces  dreamy  care- 
lessness to  one’s  environment,  a blocking  off  of  disagreeable  memories.  There 
is  failure  of  elimination  in  the  human  body  of  its  decomposition  products.  It 
produces  the  dreamy  sense  of  dodging  of  responsibilities  and  desire  to  be  let 
alone,  and  absolute  indifference  to  environment,  to  responsibilities,  and  to 
others.  Heroin  cuts  off  the  sense  of  responsibility,  in  the  moral  sense,  much 
quicker  than  morphine.  It  destroys  the  sense  of  responsibility  to  the  herd. 
Heroin  addicts  will  more  quickly  commit  crime  and  with  no  sense  of  regret  or 
responsibility  for  it.  The  herd  instinct  is  obliterated  by  heroin,  and  the  herd 
instincts  are  the  ones  which  control  the  moral  sense,  in  the  sense  of  responsi- 
bility toward  others  and  the  environment  in  general. 

Mr.  Cooper.  I was  not  here  when  the  examination  began.  Are  all  of  the 
drugs  named  in  the  Porter  resolution  habit-forming  drugs? 

Doctor  Lambert.  Yes;  every  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Cooper.  Then,  in  that  sense  they  are  dangerous  habit-forming  drugs. 

Doctor  Lambert.  Yes. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  A species  of  exaltation? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes.  I might  say  here,  I do  not  want  anyone  to 
believe  for  a moment  that  I look  upon  these  addicts  as  vicious  per- 
sons. I do  not.  Addicts  are  the  victims  of  misfortune  over  which 
but  few  of  them  have  had  any  control,  as  addiction  rarely  occurs 
through  viciousness  except  in  the  cases  of  habitues  of  the  so-called 
'‘underworld,”  and  perhaps  many  of  these  have  been  reduced  to 
this  social  condition  as  the  result  of  addiction.  They  are  the  most 
grateful  of  patients,  and  frequently  commit  minor  offenses  so  that 
they  may  be  committed  to  an  institution  in  the  hope  of  being  cured 
of  their  affliction. 

Mr.  Crim,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  stated : 

We  have  cases  where  these  meu  call  up  and  say,  “I  am  a drug  addict.  I am 
going  to  sell  some  opium  down  on  the  corner  of  such  and  such  a street  at  such 
and  such  an  hour,  and  if  you  will  go  there  you  can  apprehend  me.  I want  to 
go  to  jail.  I am  afraid  of  myself.” 

They  are  not  admitted  to  hospitals  because  their  craving  for 
the  drug  renders  them  beyond  control.  They  are  frequently  the 
victims  of  nostrums  and  quack  sanitariums,  and  should  be  the 
objects  of  compassion  rather  than  be  termed  as  "dope  fiends.  ” 

I trust  the  day  is  not  far  distant  when  the  necessity  for  construct- 
ing and  maintaining  an  institution  for  the  treatment  and  care  of 
these  unfortunate  people  is  recognized,  which  would  result  in  many 
being  cured  of  the  affliction. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Do  you  know  the  number  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  Well,  it  is  a disease  of  secrecy.  It  is  impossible  to 
ascertain  with  any  degree  of  certainty  the  number.  The  Treasury 
report  which  I referred  to  fixes  the  number  at  approximately 
1,000,000. 

Mr.  Oldfield.  Can  they  be  cured? 

Mr.  Porter.  The  accepted  treatment  is  known  as  "tapering 
off” — that  is,  the  gradual  reduction  of  the  amormt  used  until  the 
patient  is  able  to  abstain  from  its  use — but  this  is  a long  and  tedious 
treatment  requiring  strict  surveillance  of  the  patients  long  after 
they  have  left  the  hospital  or  sanitarium,  and,  as  stated  by  the 
representative  of  the  Salvation  Army,  the  peddler,  who  has  tem- 
porarily lost  a customer,  usually  persuades  his  physically  weakened 
victim  to  renew  the  drug  habit. 


8 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


Complete  recoveries  are  few  and  the  phrase  “once  an  addict 
alwa3^s  an  addict”  in  its  essence  is  literally  true,  until  we  provide  a 
more  humane  method  of  treatment  than  the  prison  cell. 

Mr.  Treadway.  Have  you  any  record,  any  statistics,  of  the  pei- 
centage  of  the  importation  of  opium  that  goes  to  the  manufacture  of 
heroin  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  No;  I think  it  is  comparatively  small,  because  a 
great  many  physicians  are  afraid  to  use  it  as  I shall  show  later — I 
doubt  if  5 per  cent  of  the  physicians  are  using  it  at  all. 

Mr.  Treadway.  How  would  you  carry  out  the  provisions  of  this 
act?  For  instance,  would  it  not  be  possible  for  anybody  importing 
opium  to  say  it  was  to  be  made  into  morphia  or  the  other  forms  of 
opium,  and  then  turn  it  over  to  the  manufacturer  of  heroin? 

Mr.  Porter.  That  is  possible. 

Mr.  Treadway.  Hov/  would  you  safeguard  that? 

Mr.  Porter.  By  the  splendid  Jones- Miller  law,  creating  the  Nar- 
cotic Control  Board,  by  which  the  privilege  of  handling  these  drugs 
is  so  valuable  that  the  manufacturers  will  not  take  the  risk  of  violat- 
ing the  law. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Is  the  illicit  manufacture  easy? 

Mr.  Porter.  No. 

Mr.  Garner.  If  I understand  the  object  of  this  bill,  it  is  to  make 
it  a crim.e  to  manufacture  heroin  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes. 

Mr.  Garner.  So  that  when  you  find  it  is  manufactured,  you  trace 
it  back  and  detect  the  manufacturer  and  punish  him? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Garner.  And  destroy  the  opportunity  of  getting  it? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Garner.  That  is  the  object  of  your  bill? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Dickinson.  So  far  as  your  bill  is  concerned,  there  are  only 
two  lines  in  it,  and  how  can  you  determine — I believe  that  question, 
practically,  has  been  asked — how  can  jmu  determine^that  it  is  im- 
ported for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  heroin? 

Mr.  Porter.  We  can  not,  but  we  have  a control  over  the  manu- 
facturer. A pharmaceutical  laboratory  costs  anywhere  from  $500,000 
to  two  or  three  million  dollars,  and  the  owners  of  that  establishment 
which  imports  opium  would  not  for  a moment  take  the  chance  of 
converting  morphia  from  that  opium  into  heroin  and  thereby  incur 
the  risk  of  losing  their  license  to  operate. 

Mr.  Dickinson.  Are  your  regulations  regarding  the  sale  of  crude 
opium  in  this  country  sufficient  to  prevent  it  being  sold  to  parties 
who  will  manufacture  heroin? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  sir;  they  could  not  do  it,  anyhow.  There  are 
only  about  eight  establishments  in  the  country  properly  equipped  to 
manufacture  heroin.  It  is  entirely  unlike  the  making  of  liquor. 

Mr.  Mills.  Mr.  Porter,  under  the  present  law  all  opium  imported 
has  to  be  labeled? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Mills.  And  they  have  to  certify  that  it  is  to  be  used  for  proper 
medicinal  purposes.  Now,  what  you  would  require  here  is  for  them 
to  go  a step  further  and  certify  that  they  would  see  that  any  opium 
imported  by  them  would  not  be  used  for  the  purposes  of  manufac- 


PROHrBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


9 


turing  heroin.  You  do  not  anticipate  any  difficulty  in  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  law,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  Oldfield.  As  a matter  of  fact,  this  opium  that  is  imported 
into  this  country  is  followed  from  the  time  it  gets  into  the  country 
on  down  through  the  laboratory  to  the  physician,  to  the  hospital,  to 
the  consumer?  Is  that  right?  I was  on  a subcommittee  once  about 
this  matter  with  Mr.  Hadley. 

Mr.  Porter.  Our  difficulties  in  the  United  States  are  not  due  to 
drugs  which  come  into  the  country  legitimately. 

Mr.  Martin.  It  is  very  easy  to  hide,  is  it  not? 

Mr,  Porter.  Yes;  that  is  true.  It  should  be  of  interest  to  know 
that  $5,000  worth  of  morphia,  codeine,  heroin,  or  cocaine  may  be 
safely  concealed  in  an  ordinary  suitcase;  that  in  a hollow  cane  of 
average  thickness  $2,000  worth  may  be  secreted.  It  was  stated  in 
your  committee  that  on  a steamer  crossing  the  Pacific  some  one 
happened  to  examine  a particular  bamboo  chair  and  found  that  its 
hollow  bamboo  was  filled  with  morphia. 

The  sundry  and  varied  manners  and  forms  in  which  traffickers 
ply  their  illicit  trade  would  prove  interesting  reading  and  be  striking 
evidence  of  the  ease  with  which  the  drugs  are  transported  from 
country  to  country.  The  vendor  of  them  finds  it  comparatively 
easy  to  bring  his  goods  into  the  United  States  through  our  extensive 
seacoasts  and  immense  boundaries.  Even  our  penitentiaries  and 
jails  are  invaded  by  the  traffickers,  who  find  wdthin  their  walls 
market  for  these  vicious  drugs,  payments  for  which  is  made  by  the 
prisoners  issuing  I.  O.  U.’s  to  friends  on  the  outside. 

The  testimony  conclusively  shows  that  habit-forming  narcotic 
drugs,  by  reason  of  their  extraordinary  nature,  will  overcome  aU 
barriers,  even  the  bars  of  prisons,  or,  as  stated  by  Sir  John  Jordan, 
the  noted  British  authority  on  the  subject  and  member  of  the  opium 
advisory  commission  appointed  by  the  council  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  "Whenever  and  wherever  opium  is  produced,  it  will  reach 
the  consumer.” 

Mr.  Tilson.  Will  you  answer  this  question,  Mr.  Porter?  At  the 
present  time  it  is  la-mul  to  import  crude  opium,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Mr.  Tilson.  Under  proper  regulations  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Tilson.  Now,  if  at  the  present  time  you  discover  that  this 
crude  opium  is  being  used  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  heroin, 
have  you  the  right  to  proceed  against  that  person  or  to  forbid  them 
having  a permit  thereafter,  or  something  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  Porter.  We  have  both  remedies  under  the  Jones- Miller  law. 

Mr.  Mills.  But  the  manufacture  of  heroin  is  not  illegal  to-day? 

Mr.  Porter.  No;  not  to-day. 

Mr.  Tilson.  Does  this  make  it  illegal  to  manufacture  it? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Tilson.  Well,  it  says  it  shall  not  be  imported  for  the  purpose 
of  manufacturing  heroin. 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes. 

Mr.  Tilson.  But  does  it  go  far  enough  and  make  it  illegal?  If  it 
is  not  already  illegal  to  manufacture  heroin,  does  this  make  it  illegal? 

Mr.  Porter.  Certainly,  it  does. 


10 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


The  Chairman.  Mr.  Porter,  I think  possibly  you  do  not  quite 
understand  the.  question.  You  make  it  illegal  to  be  imported  for 
that  purpose,  and  you  provide  under  the  act,  as  I understand  it, 
for  a penalty  for  its  being  imported  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  But  I doubt  whether  we  could  constitutionally 
inhibit  the  manufacture.  I think  that  is  what  Colonel  Tilson  was 
getting  at. 

Mr.  Tilson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Porter.  That  is  the  reason  the  bill  is  in  this  form. 

Mr.  Tilson.  That  is  what  was  in  my  mind. 

Mr.  Hadley.  This  is  the  situation,  is  it  not:  That  the  Federal 
Narcotic  Control  Board  would  have  the  power  at  this  time  to  prevent 
the  importation  if  it  were  not  for  this  outstanding  element  of  possible 
medical  use? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hadley.  There  is  that  element  in  it.  As  I understand  it, 
your  statement  is  that — basing  it  also  upon  medical  authority — 
since  there  are  other  narcotic  drugs  that  serve  the  same  useful 
purpose,  if  there  is  any,  as  this  drug,  and  since  its  effects  are  so 
much  more  deleterious  that  its  manufacture  ought  to  be  prohibited. 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Therefore,  the  Narcotic  Control  Board,  if  this  law  is 
passed  as  you  propose  it,  would  supervise  under  its  regulations  very 
rigidly  the  question 'of  fact  as  to  whether  it  is  being  imported  for 
the  manufacture  of  heroin. 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hadley.  And  if  so,  the  importation  would  be  prohibited. 
If,  perchance,  the  importer  falsified  the  purpose  of  importation  it 
would  come  in,  but  they  would  pursue  it  upon  the  showing  of  the 
importer,  to  its  ultimate  destination,  and  if  there  was  a failure  to 
carry  out  the  original  purpose,  then  in  that  case  they  would  revoke 
the  license  of  the  manufacturer. 

Mr.  Porter.  That  is  exactly  it. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Isn’t  that  the  situation? 

Mr.  Porter.  That  is  a correct  statement  of  the  entire  matter. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I ask  to  slep  aside  for  a moment? 
Doctor  Richardson  is  here.  He  has  some  appointments,  and  I would 
like  you  to  hear  his  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  As  I understand,  it  is  very  necessary  that  Doctor 
Richardson  should  leave  in  a short  time,  therefore  we  will  hear  him 
now. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  CHARLES  W.  RICHARDSON,  WASHING- 

• TON,  D.  C. 

Doctor  Richardson.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I represent 
the  executive  committee  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  American 
Medical  Association. 

This  question  of  heroin  habituation  and  its  production  yearly 
of  enormous  numbers  of  new  criminals  is  one  of  the  most  important 
moral  questions  that  is  up  before  the  American  Government  at 
the  present  time.  We  find  that  in  some  of  the  States — ^I  will  ordy 
mention  one,  and  that  is  the  great  State  of  New  York — there  is  used 


PEOHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


11 


for  criminal  purposes — that  is,  the  production  of  habitues — over 
76,000  ounces  of  heroin  each  year,  whereas,  the  14,000  physicians 
in  the  great  State  of  New  York  only  prescribed  58  ounces  of  heroin, 
either  in  its  own  form  or  in  preparations.  You  can  draw  your  con- 
clusions from  this  one  instance. 

The  Chairman.  Doctor,  can  you  state  why  heroin  is  used  by  those 
who  have  become  addicted  to  the  habit  of  using  some  form  of  opium, 
rather  than  any  other  form?  Is  it  more  convenient  or  is  it  more 
easily  obtained,  or  what  is  the  reason  ? 

Doctor  Kichardson.  The  reason  is  simply  this:  Heroin  contains, 
physiologically,  the  double  action  of  cocaine  and  morphia.  It  pro- 
duces the  excitation  of  cocaine,  with  the  sedative  effects  of  morphia. 
It  is  more  agreeable  to  take;  it  is  not  followed  by  the  nausea,  as  is  so 
often  caused  by  morphia,  nor  the  marked  depression  afterwards. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Doctor,  can  you  state  approximately,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  curative  treatment,  how  long  it  takes  a patient  to  run  his 
coiu’se,  how  long  he  can  withstand  the  reaction  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Well,  that  is  something  that  I am  not  par- 
ticularly acquainted  with,  but  I will  tell  you  this,  that  most  of  the 
habitues  of  heroin  run  between  the  ages  of  17  and  25  years.  That 
is  by  statistics  so  far,  and  that  must  mean  that  after  25  or  28 — I think 
17  to  28 — most  of  them  are  either  dead  or  out  of  the  way  somewhere. 

Mr.  Hadley.  And,  aside  from  the  length  of  time  that  it  takes  to 
run  its  course,  how  long  does  it  take  to  dethrone  their  responsibility? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Almost  immediately. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Right  away? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir;  almost  immediately.  That  is  one 
of  the  things  it  does,  dethrone  their  moral  responsibility.  It  ^ves 
them  an  exalted  impression  of  their  own  importance,  and  criminals 
by  using  it  obtain  this  result. 

Mr.  Hadley.  So  that  no  business  transaction  of  any  kind  would 
be  really  dependable  after  they  had  entered  upon  this  course? 

Doctor  Richardson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Watson.  May  I ask  you  a question?  What  effect  does  this 
drug  produce  that  can  not  be  obtained  by  cocaine  or  morphia?  In 
other  words,  can  you  name  a case  where  heroin  will  be  used  to  very 
great  advantage  over  other  derivatives  from  narcotic  drugs? 

Doctor  Richardson.  You  mean  medicinally  given? 

Mr.  Watson.  Yes. 

Doctor  Richardson.  Well,  I can  answer  that  very  readily. 

Mr.  Watson.  I asked  this  question  because  I have  a letter  here 
from  a very  prominent  physician  in  Philadelphia  advocating  the  use 
of  heroin. 

Doctor  Richardson.  I can  answer  that  question  very  readily,  sir. 
Heroin  when  first  introduced  was  supposed  to  be  an  unusually  valu- 
able drug  in  certain  conditions,  especially  where  morphine  as  a 
sedative  was  required.  ‘For  instance,  in  my  work  in  medicine  it  was 
largely  used  to  allay  cough — it  is  very  valuable  in  that  work — and 
in  this  administration  many  of  us  have  observed  that  our  patients 
demanded  more  of  the  drug.  They  were  forming  the  habit,  and  I 
want  to  tell  you,  that  in  nearly  eight  years  I have  not  written  a 
prescription  for  heroin. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  found  other  drugs  that  would  take  the 
place  of  it? 


12 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


Doctor  R1CBLA.RDSON.  Absolutely.  Sometimes  they  produce  head- 
ache and  nausea,  but  they  have  the  physiological  effect.  The  only 
thing  about  heroin  is  that  it  is  more  pleasant  to  take. 

Mr.  Hadley.  From  your  knowledge  of  the  profession,  would  you 
say  that  the  profession  generally  takes  that  view  of  the  relative 
merits  of  these  drugs? 

Doctor  Richardson.  May  I read  you  one  or  two  actions  here? 

Mr.  Hadley.  I would  like  to  know  what  the  attitude  of  the 
profession  is. 

Doctor  Richardson.  I want  to  state,  in  answer  to  that  question, 
that  the  three  services  of  the  Government,  the  Army,  the  Navy,  and 
the  Public  Health  Service  have  discontinued  its  use.  The  Public 
Health  Service  in  1916  ordered  the  discontinuance  of  the  prescribing 
of  heroin  by  the  officers  of  that  service. 

Mr.  Garner.  That  is  the  Public  Health  Service  of  the  United 
States? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes.  Doctor  Blue  gave  the  order. 

December  29,  1923,  General  Ireland  issued  an  order  that  heroin 
should  cease  to  be  given  to  members  of  the  Medical  Corps  of  the 
United  States  Army,  and  all  officers  and  posts  where  heroin  or  its 
derivatives  or  preparations  were  held  were  ordered  to  either  destroy 
it  or  return  it  to  the  depots. 

In  February,  1924 — February  8 I think  it  was — the  Surgeon 
General  of  the  Navy,  Admiral  Stitt,  issued  a similar  order,  that 
heroin  was  detrimental  to  the  men  of  the  service  and  that  it  should 
all  be  turned  in  to  the  medical  supply  depot. 

Mr.  Hawley.  And  there  is  no  public  authority  of  the  United 
States  now  that  prescribes  its  use? 

Doctor  Richardson.  No;  not  in  any  of  the  services. 

Mr.  Treadway.  Has  your  association  formally  passed  on  this  bill. 
Doctor? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir;  and  I am  here  to  represent  them. 

Mr.  Treadway.  By  their  official  action? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes;  by  resolution  of  the  house  of  delegates. 

Mr.  Treadway.  We  have  some  very  strong  protests  here  from 
Pennsylvania. 

Doctor  Richardson.  I know  you  have.  You  wiU  have  some  very 
strong  protests  from  anywhere  against  anything  you  want  to  institute 
for  the  benefit  of  manMnd  and  humanity.  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Tread- 
way, for  speaking  so  bluntly. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I think  you  are  entirely  correct.  Every 
movement  of  this  kind  always  meets  with  some  objection. 

Mr.  Hadley.  I recall  that  there  were  some  protests  two  or  three 
years  ago  against  complying  with  The  Hague  convention  obligations 
that  were  given  some  consideration  here,  and  notwithstanding  those 
protests— I happened  to  be  on  the  subcommittee — we  voted  and 
this  committee  approved  and  Congress  passed  a very  restrictive  act. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  In  what  way  has  the  American  Medical  Associa- 
tion passed  on  this? 

Mr.  Porter.  The  doctor  has  the  record  there. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Was  it  by  resolution  by  the  association? 

Doctor.  Richardson.  Yes,  sir;  representing  90,000  physicians  in 
this  country. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  read  that  please.  Doctor? 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


13 


Mr.  Chindblom.  At  what  meeting  was  that  adopted? 

Doctor  Richardson.  At  the  New  Orleans  meeting  1920.  This 
was  unanimously  passed  by  the  house  of  delegates.  The  house  of 
delegates  is  the  law-creating  body  of  the  American  Medical  Associa- 
tion. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  How  many  members  are  there  in  the  house  of 
delegates  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  There  are  136.  There  is  one  delegate  to 
each  800  physicians.  Each  State  or  Territory  that  has  not  800 
physicians  sends  a delegate,  notwithstanding. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Now  let  us  hear  the  resolution. 

Doctor  Richardson.  The  resolution  reads: 

That  heroin  be  eliminated  from  all  medicinal  preparations.  And  that  it 
should  not  be  administered,  prescribed,  nor  dispensed,  and  that  the  importation, 
manufacture,  and  sale  of  heroin  should  be  prohibited  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Young.  It  could  not  be  stronger  than  that. 

Doctor  Richardson.  It  could  not,  and  that  is  our  feeling  to-day. 

Mr.  Watson.  You  stated  that  morphine  produced  sickness, 
nausea? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Watson.  But  heroin  does  not?  Suppose  a patient  came  to 
you  and  said,  “1  can  not  take  morphine,  but  I prefer  taking  heroin 
because  I do  not  have  the  after  effects  of  nausea,”  would  you  then 
be  willing  to  give  heroin  to  that  patient? 

Doctor  Richardson.  No,  sir.  There  is  another  alkaloid  which  is 
nearly  as  good  as  morphia,  and  that  is  codein. 

Mr.  Watson.  What  is  that  derived  from? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Opium. 

The  Chairman.  Doctor,  let  me  read  you  a telegram  that  has  come 
to  me.  In  a somewhat  milder  form  I have  received  a number  of 
letters  and  telegrams: 

Hon.  William  R.  Greene, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

Washington,  D.  C.: 

I urge  you  to  oppose  passage  bill  7079  limiting  importation  of  opium  to  prevent 
manufacture  of  heroin.  It  is  about  time  that  ignorant  laymen  ceased  foolishly 
limiting  physicians  in  the  legitimate  practice  of  medicine.  Kindly  use  your 
whole  influence  to  prevent  further  encroachment  upon  physicians’  rights. 

Dr.  DeWitt  H.  Sherman. 

Mr.  Hawley.  I suggest  that  you  read  the  answer. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Hawley  I will  read  the 
answer: 

Dr.  DeWitt  H.  Sherman,  Buffalo,  N.  Y . 

Mt  Dear  Sir:  Replying  to  your  telegram  just  received,  I would  say  that 
Congress,  realizing  that  it  is  composed  of  “ignorant  laymen,”  so  far  as  the  use  of 
opiates  is  concerned,  acts  only  upon  the  best  expert  advice  obtainable. 

My  committee  will  shortly  have  a hearing  upon  the  bill  to  which  your  telegram 
refers,  and  I will  send  you  a copy  of  this  hearing.  I do  not  know  what  will  be 
done  with  the  bill,  but  if  we  do  report  it.  it  will  be  because  we  have  taken  the 
advice  of  persons  supposed  to  be  the  leading  lights  in  the  medical  profession. 

Very  truly  yours. 

I imagine  the  gentleman  who  sent  that  telegram  probably  had  not 
considered  the  matter  very  carefully  and  inspired  some  others,  but 
I have  some  letters  and  commimications  that  seem  to  have  been  more 


96182—24 2 


14 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


carefully  considered  than  the  one  I read  first.  Here  is  a letter  from 
J.  Leslie  Davis,  of  Philadelphia.  This  is  rather  long  and  I will  not 
read  it  in  full,  but  he  says  in  his  letter: 

It  is  my  honest  belief  there  are  certain  indications  for  the  use  of  heroin  where 
its  effect  can  not  be  obtained  or  approached  by  any  other  substance.  A specific, 
and  exceedingly  important  indication  is  that  of  acute  affection  of  the  middle 
ear.  In  affections  of  a character  that  very  rapidly  follow,  their  first  symptoms 
are  apt  to  be  followed  by  serious  or  virulent  exudate  in  the  middle  ear  cavity, 
which  has  usually  required  the  incision  of  the  drum  membrane  for  its  evacuation. 

Then  he  goes  on  further  to  state  that  he  has  found  that  the  use 
of  heroin  in  small  doses  has  been  an  effective  measure  in  checking  these 
things. 

Doctor  Richardson.  May  I answer  that  question?  I know 
Leslie  Davis  very  well.  I hope  he  does  not  practice  what  he 
preaches  in  that  letter.  If  he  does,  he  is  not  a good  otologist. 

Mr.  Treadway.  Now,  let  me  ask  in  that  connection,  is  that  not 
directl^r  in  line  with  your  practice  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  Treadway.  And  you  undoubtedly  have  a great  many  such 
operations  as  he  refem  to  there  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Treadway.  And  you  do  not  find  it  necessary  to  give  heroin? 

Doctor  Richardson.  No,  sir;  I never  give  it.  I open  the  abcess 
and  evacuate  the  pus  and  that  quiets  the  pain. 

Mr.  Watson.  May  I read  four  lines  here?  I do  not  like  to  bring 
up  an  argument  before  physicians,  but  I have  a letter  from  Dr.  H.  A. 
Hare,  professor  of  therapeutics,  Jefferson  Medical  College.  In  the 
last  paragraph  he  writes: 

May  I add,  that  to  absolutely  prohibit  the  existence  of  this  drug  is  a very 
sweeping  piece  of  legislation,  which,  while  protecting  persons  who  are  more  or 
less  degenerate,  would  deprive  a multitude  of  worthy  people  of  an  efficient 
pain-relieving  remedy. 

And  with  the  permission  of  the  chairman,  I would  like  to  introduce 
that  letter  into  the  record  after  the  doctor  has  finished  his  remarks. 

Doctor  Richardson.  You  wish  me  to  answer  that? 

Mr.  Watson.  You  have  already  answered  it,  I believe. 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes.  I am  a classmate  of  Dr.  Hobart  A. 
Hare,  and  I know  him  very  intimately.  May  I answer  that  question, 
Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  Had  you  any  answer  to  make  to  that? 

Doctor  Richardson,  Yes;  three  of  the  largest  drug  firms  of 
America  are  located  in  Philadelphia.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Porter,  kir.  Chairman,  I was  about  to  inquire  if  the  large 
majority  of  these  protests  do  not  come  from  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  Hawley.  From  Pennsylvania. 

The  Chairman.  From  Pennsylvania,  I think,  although  here  is  one 
from  St.  Paul  and  one  from  New  Orleans  and  St.  Louis. 

Doctor,  I have  frequently  heard  it  said  by  persons  who  had  some 
familiarity  with,  police  work  that  the  police  officers  had  found  that 
addicts  to  the  use  of  opiates  were  now  almost  uniformly  using  heroin 
and  that  it  had  become  in  that  way  a very  dangerous  drug.  Do  you 
know  anything  about  the  results  of  any  such  investigations  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  I know  it  is  a fact,  sir.  Most  policemen  in 
charge  of  the  narcotic  groups  feel  that  addicts  to  heroin  are  increas- 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


15 


ing  very  rapidly  in  number,  and  addicts  to  opium  and  cocaine  are 
decreasing. 

Mr.  Garner.  I think  Mr.  Porter  placed  in  the  record  this  morning 
a statement  to  the  effect  that  probably  98  per  cent  of  the  addicts  are 
now  using  heroin  instead  of  other  drugs. 

Mr.  Porter.  In  addition  to  that  statement,  I have  here  Doctor 
Squires,  physician  of  Sing  Sing  prison,  who  is  very  familiar  with  this 
subject,  so  far  as  the  criminal  element  is  concerned. 

Mr.  Garner.  Doctor,  speaking  about  the  difference  of  opinion 
between  you  and  some  of  your  intimate  friends  as  to  the  therapeutic 
effects  of  heroin,  is  it  not  a fact  that  doctors  and  lawyers  and  most 
professional  men  have  some  difference  of  opinion  on  nearly  every 
subject  that  comes  before  them? 

Doctor  Richardson.  We  are  aU  human,  sir. 

Ml’.  Hawley.  Doctor,  have  you  anything  further  to  present? 

Doctor  Richardson.  I am  through  unless  you  want  to  ask  me  some 
further  questions. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Are  there  any  further  questions  to  ask  the  doctor  ? 
If  not,  we  are  very  grateful  to  you  for  your  statement. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Just  one  observation — it  appears  that  the  move- 
ment against  the  use  of  this  drug  actually  started  in  a Federal  depart- 
ment, the  United  States  Public  Health  Service? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes;  primarily,  but  the  medical  profession 
was  awakened  to  the  necessity.  The  Public  Health  Service  started 
it,  but  the  Public  Health  Service  made  more  headway  with  it  simply 
because  they  could  control  their  men  more  directly  than  the  medical 
men  in  general  can  control  their  patients. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  The  action  of  the  medical  profession  came  four 
years  later? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  And  the  action  of  the  Army  and  Navy  seems  to 
have  come  seven  years  later? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Young.  What  proportion  of  the  doctors  have  authority  or 
license  to  use  heroin  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Any  graduate  of  medicine  has  the  right  to 
use  anything  in  medicine. 

Mr.  Young.  All  doctors  may  prescribe  it? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Doctor,  you  are  familiar  with  the  state  of  existing 
legislation  on  the  narcotic  subject? 

Doctor  Richardson.  I think  I am;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Having  that  in  mind  and  having  reference  to  this 
bill,  is  it  your  opinion  that  if  enacted  as  proposed  it  will  meet  the 
situation  effectually  to  which  you  object? 

Doctor  Richardson.  I think  it  will,  because,  as  you  know,  heroin 
is  a derivative  of  morphine,  and  if  you  diminish  the  amount  of  mor- 
phine in  this  country  through  opium  admitted  you  have  got  to  give 
way  somewhere,  and  it  is  easier  for  them  to  manufacture  morphine 
and  other  derivatives  than  it  is  to  illicitly  manufacture  heroin.  If 
the  law  prescribed  that  opium  should  not  be  used  for  a certain  pur- 
pose, no  honorable  firm — and  I believe  there  are  a great  many  of 
them — would  dare  use  that  opium  for  the  illicit  manufacture  of  mor- 
phia, to  be  converted  into  heroin. 


16 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


Mr.  Treadway.  Along  that  line,  Doctor,  admitting  that  there  are 
great  quantities  smuggled  into  the  United  States,  if  it  is  smuggled,  in 
the  form  of  crude  opium,  is  the  process  of  transforming  it  into  heroin 
such  a difficult  one  that  whoever  was  illegitimately  doing  so  would 
not  continue  to  produce  heroin  if  this  law  was  enacted  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  I do  not  know  enough  of  the  pharmaceutical 
methods  of  the  preparation  of  it  to  answer  that  question,  otherwise 
I would  try  to  answer  it.  We  are  going  to  have  illicit  smuggling 
unless  the  other  countries  of  the  world,  the  great  producers,  manufac- 
turers will  join  with  us.  We  will  do  out  part  if  they  will  do  their  part. 
Great  Britain,  France,  Germany,  and  Japan. 

Mr.  Treadway.  I believe  you  said  that  the  addicts  are  transferring 
from  the  other  forms  of  opium  to  heroin. 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Treadway.  In  large  percentage  ^ 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Treadway.  The  reason  of  that  is  the  pleasanter  effect  of  the 
drug? 

Doctor  Richardson.  And  the  less  unpleasant  after  effects. 

Mr.  Treadway.  The  less  unpleasant  consequences  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Tilson.  Would  you  go  so  far  as  to  wipe  this  drug  out  of 
existence  altogether? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Absolutely.  Its  use  has  been  abandoned 
now  by  the  three  services  of  the  United  States  Government  and  by 
resolution  of  the  American  Medical  Association,  and  any  man  who 
is  a member  of  the  American  Medical  Association  and  prescribes 
heroin,  is  violating  his  regulations. 

Mr.  Tilson.  So,  in  your  judgment,  it  should  be  universally 
outlawed  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  I have  no  use  for  it  in  medicine.  Here  are 
four  of  the  great  organizations  which  would  administer  drugs  that 
have  proscribed  the  use  of  it.  What  other  use  have  you  for  it  except 
injthe  arts  and  for  the  addicts  ? 

Mr.  McLaughlin.  Have  you  any  information  on  the  action  being 
taken  by  State  legislatures  to  forbid  the  manufacture  or  distribution 
of  this  drug? 

^Doctor  Richardson.  No,  sir. 

rjJMr.  •McLaughlin.  I ask  that  because,  as  stated  by  our  chairman 
a few  minutes  ago,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  can  not  control 
the  manufacture  of  these  things  in  the  States,  nor  their  sale  or  use. 
The  Congress  can  forbid  their  importation;  can  forbid  their  trans- 
portation in  interstate  commerce,  but  only  the  States  have  power 
and  it  is  complete  power  to  forbid  and  prevent  the  manufacture.  A 
State  can  forbid  the  use  by  physicians;  can  forbid  the  sale  by  manu- 
facturers and  druggists;  can  forbid  the  sale  by  druggists  to  physicians; 
can  do  all  those  things,  not  one  of  which  can  be  done  by  the  Federal 
Government.  Federal  authority  in  the  matter  is  very  limited  indeed. 
It  would  seem  to  me  that  in  this  situation,  serious  as  your  testimony 
indicates  it  is — ^and  I credit  it  fully.  Doctor — that  something  should 
be  done  through  the  legislatures  of  the  States.  There  is  a miscon- 
ception of  the  power  of  the  Federal  Government. 

Doctor  Richardson.  I recognize  that,  sir,  but  I can  not  teU  you 
the  legal  methods  of  getting  around  it.  That  is  for  you  gentlemen 
to  decide. 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OP  OPIUM 


17 


Mr.  McLaughlin.  We  have  a good  deal  to  do  if  we  look  after  our 
own  matters  here  and  keep  within  the  limits  prescribed  for  us,  and 
gentlemen  like  you  who  are  so  well  informed  and  so  capable  of  prop- 
erly disseminating  useful  information,  it  might  be  incumbent  on  some 
of  you  gentlemen — I say  that  in  the  proper  spirit — to  being  this  matter 
to  the  attention  of  State  legislatures. 

Doctor  Richardson.  If  you  stop  the  importation  of  the  crude  drug 
for  the  manufacture  of  morphine  into  heroin  the  American  Medical 
Association  will  look  after  the  legislatures  of  the  States. 

Mr.  Crisp.  The  only  way  morphine  gets  into  this  country  is  by 
importation,  and  Congress  is  the  only  power  that  can  prescribe  and 
prohibit  the  importation  into  the  United  States.  Is  not  that  true? 

Doctor  Richarson.  Tes,  sir. 

Mr.  Porter.  Morphine  has  already  been  prohibited. 

Mr.  Tilson.  But  the  fact  is  it  does  come  in  illegally.  It  gets 
into  this  country  in  spite  of  the  law.  Now  should  we  not  go  further 
and  appeal  to  the  States,  which  have  plenary  power  in  the  matter  of 
manuiacture  and  distribution  in  the  States,  and  get  the  States  to  go 
further  than  the  Federal  Government  has  the  right  to  go  under  the 
Constitution  ? 

Mr.  Garner.  Well,  let  us  see  if  that  is  necessary.  If  you  prohibit 
the  importation  of  opium  for  the  purpose  of  making  heroin,  and  it  is  a 
crime  to  import  it,  and  it  is  imported  and  you  make  heroin  out  of  it, 
the  manufacture  of  that  is  violating  the  law. 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Garner.  And  you  imprison  him  or  fine  him,  as  the  case  may 
be.  You  do  not  need  any  State  law  to  get  that  man  any  time,  unless 
you  want  a double  penalty,  a double  set  of  officers  looking  after  that 
1 particular  crime. 

Mr.  McLaughlin.  But,  Mr.  Garner,  it  may  be  made  unlawful 
to  import  it,  but  it  is  nevertheless  imported,  and  this  Congress  has  no 
power  to  forbid  the  manufacture  of  an  article  from  that  importation 
if  that  article  reaches  the  country. 

Mr.  Garner.  All  right.  Now,  some  manufacturer,  we  will  say, 
imports  crude  opium,  and  he  uses  that  for  the  purpose  of  manufac- 
turing heroin.  He  violates  the  law.  It  is  a circumstance  showing 
he  could  not  have  possibly  gotten  that  crude  opium  otherwise  than 
by  violating  the  law  when  he  makes  heroin. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Then  we  have  a statute,  do  we  not,  under  which 
the  Control  Board  can  cancel  his  license?  In  any  event  he  would 
be  subject  to  the  penalties  for  fraudulent  importation. 

Mr.  Garner.  I do  not  know  what  the  law  is  in  reference  to  that, 
but  I know  this  looks  to  me  like  a very  effective  impediment  to  the 
manufacture  and  distribution  of  heroin. 

Mr.  Oldfield.  We  have  a commission  that  controls  it  absolutely. 

Mr.  Crisp.  Have  you  any  idea  as  to  the  percentage  of  opium  that 
is  imported  into  this  country,  that  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
heroin  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  I could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  suggest  to  the  members  of  the  committee 
that  probably  this  is  just  the  best  place  to  discuss  the  legal  questions. 
Of  course,  we  will  have  to  go  over  the  legal  questions  before  we 
I finally  dispose  of  the  bill,  and  on  that  part.  Doctor,  some  of  us  feel 
I a great  deal  more  competent  than  we  do  on  the  medical  part,  as  to 


18 


PEOHIBITIIS  G THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


which  we  have,  of  course,  no  special  knowledge.  We  are  not  entirely 
“ignorant  laymen”  on  the  legal  features. 

Mr.  Tilson.  I think  it  will  not  be  amiss  to  suggest  to  the  doctor 
that  through  his  very  influential  association  they  might  even  go 
farther,  go  into  the  States  and  get  such  help  in  enforcement  and 
eradication  of  this  deleterious  drug  as  can  be  gotten  only  from  the 
States. 

The  Chairman.  I think  that  is  a very  proper  suggestion,  because 
the  police  powers — which  is  a signification  that  I do  not  need  to 
stop  to  explain  at  this  time — the  police  powers  belong  entirely  to 
the  States,  and  Congress  can  only  exercise  such  authority  in  connec- 
tion with  the  importation  of  the  articles  as  is  necessary  to  enforce 
the  import  regulations. 

Mr.  Garner.  I want  to  suggest  that  the  chairman  correct  his 
remarks  and  strike  out  the  word  “ entirely — police  powers  are 
“entirely”  controlled  by  the  States.  There  are  certain  subjects  of 
which  the  Federal  Government  takes  cognizance. 

The  Chairman.  That  depends,  Mr.  Garner,  upon  a constitutional 
question. 

Mr.  Hawley.  I would  like  to  ask  you  one  question.  Doctor. 
You  stated  the  American  Medical  Association  has  90,000  members. 
What  proportion  is  that  of  the  entire  medical  profession  of  the  United 
States  ? 

Doctor  Richardson.  I guess  about  80  per  cent. 

Mr.  Treadway.  And,  of  course,  included  in  that  90,000  are  these 
associations  protesting  against  the  action  of  the  National  Association? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  I would  like  to  ask  one  question.  Is  there  any 
difference  in  the  dosage,  the  quantity  of  the  drug  used  in  the  case  of 
heroin  and  the  other  opiates? 

Doctor  Richardson.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Is  the  dose  used  in  the  case  of  heroin  lesser  or 
greater  than  that  of  other  drugs? 

Doctor  Richardson.  It  is  a smaller  dose. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  That,  of  course,  makes  it  easier  to  handle  it. 

Doctor  Richardson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Crisp.  Is  it  more  expensive,  doctor? 

Doctor  Richardson.  I do  not  know  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  If  there  is  nothing  further,  the  Doctor  is  desirous 
of  leaving,  and  we  thank  you  very  much.  Doctor. 

Mr.  Watson  submitted  the  following  letter  from  Dr.  H.  A.  Hare, 
of  Philadelphia,  Pa. : 

Philadelphia,  April  1,  1924- 

Hon.  Henby  G.  Watson, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir:  I understand  that  H.  R.  7079,  which  will  prohibit  the  importation 
of  opium  for  the  manufacture  of  heroin  and  also  forbid  the  importation  of  heroin 
comes  up  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  on  Thursday  morning  next, 
at  10  o’clock.  In  my  opinion  this  drug  is  an  exceedingly  useful  one,  performing 
a function  that  no  other  drug  will  perform  under  certain  circumstances.  The 
Harrison  narcotic  act,  if  properly  enforced,  is  entirely  adequate  to  prevent  the 
abuse  of  heroin,  and  the  mere  fact  that  heroin  is  used  as  a habit-producing  drug 
does  not  justify  its  entire  prohibition  anymore  than  would  entire  prohibition  of 
cocaine  or  morphine  be  justified. 

May  I add,  that  to  absolutely  prohibit  the  existence  of  this  drug  is  a very 
sweeping  piece  of  legislation,  which,  while  protecting  persons  who  are  more  or 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


19 


less  degenerate,  would  deprive  a multitude  of  worthy  people  of  an  efficient 
pain-relieving  remedy. 

Yours  very  truly, 

Hobert  a.  Hare, 

Professor  of  Therapeutics,  Jefferson  Medical  College. 

Mr.  Porter.  I would  like  permission  now  to  call  Doctor  Squires. 

STATEMENT  OF  DE.  AMOS  0.  SQUIEES,  CHIEF  PHYSICIAN, 
SING  SING  PEISON,  OSSINING,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  Porter.  How  long  have  you  been  practicing  medicine, 
Doctor? 

H Doctor  Squires.  I have  been  practicing  25  years  this  spring. 

Mr.  Porter.  And  what  special  employment  have  you  at  the 
present  time? 

Doctor  Squires.  I am  chief  physician  of  Sing  Sing  prison,  New 
York  State. 

Mr.  Porter.  How  long  have  you  held  that  position? 

Doctor  Squires.  I was  there  first  24  years  ago,  when  the  resident 
physician  was  in  Europe.  I was  consultant  there  for  12  years,  and 
I have  been  there  now  since  1916,  with  the  exception  of,  I think, 
seven  months. 

Mr.  Hawley.  What  is  your  official  position? 

Doctor  Squires.  I am  chief  physician  of  Sing  Sing  prison. 

Mr.  Porter.  About  how  many  prisoners  are  there  in  Sing  Sing 
prison  at  the  present  time? 

Doctor  Squires.  We  have  a constant  population  of  approximately 
1,300.  We  receive  70  per  cent  of  all  the  men  who  are  convicted  of 
the  crime  of  felony  in  New  York  State.  We  received  last  year 
about  900  new  ones;  the  year  before  some  1,457.  I will  say  offhand 
that  we  receive  approximately  1,200,  on  an  average  of  1,200  new  men 
every  year. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  What  is  the  annual  turnover? 

Doctor  Squires.  We  transfer  from  Sing  Sing  to  three  other  penal 
institutions.  Auburn,  Dannemara,  and  Great  Meadows,  but  being 
so  near  New  York  and  taking  our  criminals  from  the  metropolitan 
district,  we  receive  70  per  cent  of  all  the  felons  of  the  whole  State 
of  New  York. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  So  these  transfers  affect  the  population? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes;  they  keep  the  population  down. 

Mr.  McLaughlin.  You  receive  only  those  who  are  convicted  of 
felonies  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes,  sir;  with  a minimum  sentence  of  one  year  to 
natural  life  or  the  death  penalty. 

Mr.  Treadway.  One  thousand  three  hundred  is  the  total  capacity 
of  the  institution  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes.  Really,  our  capacity  is  much  less  than  that. 
We  only  have  900  cells,  but  we  have  two  improvised  dormitories 
that  house  two  or  three  hundred,  and  I have  generally  70  or  80  in 
the  hospital. 

Mr.  Watson.  What  is  the  average  age? 

Doctor  Squires.  Twenty-four  years.  We  get  them  as  young  as 
16,  and  as  far  advanced  as  they  may  be  when  they  commit  a crime. 
The  average  age  is  24. 


20 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


!Mr.  Porter.  During  your  service  at  this  prison  have  you  had 
occasion  to  make  a study  of  drug  addiction  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  I have. 

Mr.  Porter.  Do  you  believe  that  the  manufacture  of  heroin 
should  be  prohibited  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  I do. 

Mr.  Porter.  Now,  will  you  state  to  the  committee — because, 
I will  say,  that  the  doctor  has  a profound  knowledge  of  the  subject — 
will  you  state  to  the  committee  your  reasons  in  support  of  this  bill? 

Doctor  Squires.  Prior  to  1919  the  question  of  drug  addiction  was 
not  of  very  great  concern  to  us  in  the  prison,  as  it  has  been  during 
the  last  few  years.  In  fact,  in  1917,  out  of  the  total  number  received 
at  Sing  Sing  prison,  less  than  four-tenths  of  1 per  cent  were  drug 
addicts.  In  fact,  prior  to  1919,  for  an  average  of  six  years,  our  drug 
addicts  would  only  equal  about  13  a year.  In  1920  it  increased  over 
100  per  cent  over  that  average.  In  1922  it  increased  over  500  per 
cent  over  that  average,  and  in  1923  it  increased  over  900  per  cent. 

So  to-day  1 out  of  every  11  men  who  is  admitted  to  Sing  Sing 
prison  is  a drug  addict.  They  are  what  you  might  call  criminal  drug 
addicts. 

Mr.  McLaughlin.  This  drug  is  used  by  women,  too,  is  it  not? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes,  sir;  but  we  do  not  house  women.  They  go 
to  Auburn  direct.  Ninety-six  per  cent  of  the  men  who  come  to  us 
who  are  drug  addicts  are  heroin  addicts;  less  than  1 per  cent  are 
cocaine.  In  fact,  cocaine  is  almost — ^well,  we  sometimes  go  a year 
without  seeing  a cocaine  addict.  The  other  3 or  4 per  cent  are  those 
who  take  heroin  and  morphine  together. 

I found  that  the  age  of  the  heroin  addict  in  prison  is  younger  than 
our  average  age.  Our  average  age  of  the  general  population  is  about 
24  years,  and  the  drug  addict  is  23  years. 

Mr.  Treadway.  To  what  do  you  ascribe  that  tremendous  in- 
creased percentage  in  the  last  few  years? 

Doctor  Squires.  That  there  are  more  using  it  on  the  outside, 
more  of  the  criminals  using  it. 

Mr.  Treadway.  To  its  being  easily  obtained? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes;  and  I think  that  to-day  there  is  more  drug 
peddling  than  ever  before.  I have  had  men  come  to  us  who  are 
imprisoned  there,  who  have  told  me  they  have  made  as  much  as 
$125  a week  peddling  drugs. 

Mr.  Garner.  Doctor,  what  do  you  attribute  the  increase  in  the 
peddling  of  drugs  to? 

Doctor  Squires.  I really  do  not  know  what  would  cause  it..  They 
teU  me,  those  who  are  drug  addicts,  that  they  were  handed  a sample 
package,  a great  many  of  them,  and  after  they  found  out  the  effect 
of  it,  they  have  gone  on  and  taken  it.  There  is  no  question  but  what 
enviromnent  and  bad  associations  is  one  of  the  big  factors  in  men 
starting  to  using  the  drug.  It  has  a tremendous  hold  upon  them, 
however.  We  have  men  who  come  to  the  prison  for  a period  of 
years  who  are  drug  addicts,  and  while  they  are  there  I am  satisfied 
they  do  not  get  any  of  it,  because  we  are  very  careful;  in  fact,  a man 
in  prison  to-day  is  not  permitted  to  have  a visit  from  any  member 
of  his  family  unless  he  first  goes  into  an  adjoining  room  and  strips, 
takes  all  his  clothes  off;  his  clothes  are  searched;  he  goes  in  and  has 
his  visit,  and  after  the  visit  he  goes  back  into  the  room,  takes  all  of 


PBOHIBITTNG  THE  IMPOBTATION  OP  OPIUM 


21 


his  clothes  off,  so  that  we  use  every  precaution  to  stop  smuggling  of 
drugs  into  the  prison,  and  I have  no  knowledge  of  any  being  in  t&re 
to-day.  But  we  know  that  50  per  cent  of  the  men  who  are  addicted 
to  drugs  come  back  to  us.  . 

The  Chaibman.  Doctor,  might  not  this  increase  be  explained 
somewhat  by  the  nature  of  the  effect  of  the  drug  as  it  has  been  ex- 
plained here,  producing  such  an  exhilarating  effect  at  the  time,  and 
the  aftereffect  not  being  as  disagreable  as  other  opiates?  Might 
that  not  to  some  extent  explain  the  increased  use? 

Doctor  Squibes.  Yes;  I think  that  curiosity  on  the  part  of  some 
men  of  criminal  tendencies  has  increased  the  number  of  drug  addicts. 
I mean  that  one  of  his  friends  or  pals  who  has  taken  the  drug  and 
has  spoken  to  him  saying  that  it  has  such  a delightful  influence,  and 
I think  a great  many  of  them  start  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Tilson.  Do  you  not  think  we  might  just  as  well  face  the 
fact  and  say  that  the  difficulty  in  getting  alcohol  has  caused  a great 
increase  in  the  drug  addictions? 

Doctor  Squibes.  I do  not  know.  Where  I live  it  is  not  so  difficult 
to  get.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Tilson.  I think  the  doctor  is  right  in  that  regard,  but  is  it  not 
possible  that  some  prefer  to  take  it  rather  than  alcohol  ? 

Doctor  Squibes.  The  effect  of  heroin  is  very  much  more  severe 
on  the  body  and  mind  than  alcohol  is,  and  there  is  less  hope  for  a 
man  who  is  an  addict  getting  well  than  for  the  man  who  is  an  alco- 
holic getting  well. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Doctor,  you  said  that  the  average  age  of  the  addict 
was  23? 

Doctor  Squibes.  Yes;  of  those  admitted  to  us. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Twenty-three  for  the  addicts  ? 

Doctor  Squibes.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hadley.  That  would  not  correspond  to  the  average  age  of 
addicts  of  liquor,  would  it? 

Doctor  Squibes.  Well,  I do  not  know  about  that.  Of  course,  I 
think  the  addicts  of  liquor  to-day  are  very  much  younger  than  they 
used  to  be.  My  observation  is  that  there  are  more  young  people — 
and  I am  speaking  now  as  a professional  man  who  takes  care  of 
patients — that  more  young  people  take  alcohol  to-day — I mean  as 
to  age — than  they  did  some  years  ago. 

Mr.  Porter.  May  I add,  for  the  information  of  the  committee, 
that  during  the  hearings  on  the  House  resolution  last  year  I asked 
every  physician  the  question  which  you  have  asked,  and  the  majority 
opinion  was  that  prohibition  had  had  no  material  influence  on  in- 
creasing drug  addiction. 

Mr.  McLaughlin.  Doctor,  I believe  you  made  a statement  to 
the  effect  that  50  per  cent  of  the  prisoners  addicted  to  the  use  of 
these  drugs  come  back  to  the  prison  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes,  sir.  They  take  up  the  habit  after  they  leave 
the  prison  and  commit  a crime,  and  we  receive  them  back  again. 
That  is  what  I mean. 

Mr.  McLaughlin.  Can  you  tell  us  anything  as  to  the  State  of 
mind  or  body  of  those  who  return,  which  gives  evidence  that  they 
have  continued  to  use  the  drug? 

Doctor  Squires.  The  physical  depreciation  as  the  result  of  heroin, 
both  physical  and  mentM,  is  enormous.  The  health  of  men  who  come 


22 


PKOHIBITING  THE  IMPOETATION  OP  OPIUM 


to  US,  who  are  drug  addicts,  is  depleted  to  the  extreme,  and  their 
mental  equipment  has  been  more  or  less  disturbed,  and  I believe  that 
if  a man  takes  it  for  a number  of  years,  a large  percentage  of  them, 
depending  entirely  on  the  man  himself,  because  you  know  as  well 
as  I that  drugs  affect  different  people  in  a different  way — there  are 
some  types  of  individuals  who  I see  in  my  hospital,  who  are  per- 
manently injm-ed  by  the  use  of  heroin,  and  those  are  the  ones  that 
will  go  out  and  commit  crimes  and  come  back  to  us  as  drug  addicts. 

Mr.  Porter.  Pardon  an  interruption,  hut  the  reason  they  commit 
the  crime  is  their  frenzy  to  get  money  with  which  to.buy  more  drugs, 
is  it  not? 

Doctor  Squires.  A large  percentage  of  them;  yes. 

Mr.  Porter.  It  is  not  a desire  to  commit  a crime,  but  the  desire 
to  get  money  with  which  to  buy  drugs? 

Doctor  Squires.  A large  percentage  of  our  men  are  there  for  grand 
larceny,  because  the  taking  of  the  drug  is  a very  expensive  luxury.* 

Mr.  Porter.  Do  you  recall  that  case  in  your  State  where  four  or 
five  addicts  went  into  a bank  and  shot  the  cashier  and  clerk? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes.  Of  course  that  is  a rather  common  crime. 

Mr.  Porter.  They  were  all  addicts  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes.  And  the  drug  addict,  they  tell  me,  will 
spend  as  much  as  $48  a day  to  secure  these  drugs  from  the  drug 

geddler.  The  drug  is  adulterated  with  sugar  or  milk,  and  they 
ave  to  buy  a lot  in  order  to  satisfy  their  craving. 

The  Chairman.  As  I understand  it  then.  Doctor,  they  commit 
crimes  in  older  to  get  money  to  buy  this  drug? 

Doctor  Squires.  Not  all  of  them;  no.  Some  of  them  do. 

The  Chairman.  In  some  instances  they  do?  , 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  right  in  that  connection,  I would  like  to  ask 
another  question.  Do  they  commit  crimes  while  they  are  under  the 
influence  of  the  drug — that  is,  does  the  drug  create  such  a state  of 
mind  that  they  are  more  reckless? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes;  some  of  them  never  would  commit  the 
Clime  if  they  were  not  in  the  state  of  intoxication  due  to  the  drug. 
Others  will  take  it  when  they  are  more  themselves,  hut  the  craving 
is  there  and  they  will  commit  the  crime  in  order  to  get  the  money  in 
order  to  satisfy  their  craving. 

Mr.  Porter.  Doctor,  can  you  tell  the  committee  the  percentage 
of  the  gunmen  in  New  York  who  commit  crimes  of  violence,  who  are 
addicted  to  the  use  of  drugs  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  I could  not  tell  you  that. 

Mr.  Porter.  Well,  a great  many  of  them  are? 

Doctor  Squires.  A great  many  of  them  are.  A man  who  takes 
heroin  is  particularly  reckless. 

Mr.  Crisp.  What  percentage — you  stated  it  but  I did  not  catch 
it — what  percentage  of  the  inmates  of  the  prison  are  drug  addicts? 

Doctor  Squires.  Of  those  admitted  at  the  present  time  or  last 
year,  one  out  of  every  eleven,  or  900  per  cent  increase  over  the 
average  of  six  years  prior  to  1919. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Nine  or  ten  per  cent? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes;  about  9 per  cent.  I can  give  you  every 
year  for  several  years. 

Mr.  Crisp.  I wish  you  would  put  that  into  the  record. 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


23 


Doctor  Squires.  In  1917  there  was  four-tenths  of  1 per  cent  of  the 
total  admissions  who  were  drug  addicts;  in  1918  it  was  1 per  cent; 
in  1919,  1.2  per  cent;  in  1920,  2.2  per  cent;  in  1921,  6.5  per  cent;  in 
1922,  9.1  per  cent.  Last  year  there  was  a falling  ofl  to  7.2  per  cent, 
but  the  first  six  months  of  our  fiscal  year,  which  closes  the  31st  day 
of  December  last,  it  had  increased  again  to  9 per  cent. 

Mr.  Watson.  Have  you  evidence  that  men  distribute  candy  with 
morphine  in  it,  to  children  for  the  purpose  of  getting  them  to  become 
addicts  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  I have  no  personal  knowledge  of  that.  Congress- 
man, although  that  has  been  told  me. 

Mr.  Watson.  That  statement  has  been  made,  but  it  is  very  diffi- 
cult to  believe. 

Doctor  Squires.  I have  no  authentic  knowledge  as  to  that.  I did 
have  a man  in  prison  recently  who  admitted  to  me  that  he  made  an 
average  of  $125  a week  peddling  ‘‘dope.” 

Mr.  Chindblom.  You  say  that  50  per  cent  of  the  addicts  come 
back  to  the  prison? 

Doctor  Squires.  About  50  per  cent. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  What  percentage  of  the  average  run  of  prisoners 
come  back? 

Doctor  Squires.  Oui*  statistics  show  that  54  per  cent  of  all  the 
men  that  are  admitted  to  Sing  Sing  prison  have  been  convicted  of  a 
previous  offense.  They  have  either  been  in  prison  or  got  a suspended 
sentence.  The  last  report  of  the  State  Prison  Commissioner  of  New 
York  State  showed  that  out  of  those  paroled  from  Sing  Sing  Prison, 
91  per  cent  make  good. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Now,  most  of  these  men  have  had  a preliminary 
incarceration  in  a local  jail? 

Doctor  Squires.  Fifty-four  per  cent. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  No;  I mean  before  they  are  tendered  to  the  peni- 
tentiary^, they  have  had  a previous  incarceration  in  the  Tombs  or 
some  jail,  some  county  jail,  or  somewhere? 

Doctor  Squires.  Fifty-four  per  cent  of  our  admissions  have,  yes. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Well,  all  of  them,  practically,  have? 

Doctor  Squires.  No. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  But  they  have  been  under  aiTest. 

Doctor  Squires.  No. 

Mr.  Mills.  He  means  pending  trial. 

Doctor  Squires.  They  are  all  arrested,  of  course. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  What  I am  getting  at  is  is  this:  They  have 
already  all  been  arrested,  and  a large  proportion  of  them  have  been 
unable  to  furnish  bail  and  have  been  compelled  to  languish  in  a local 
prison  pending  trial? 

Dr.  Squires.  Yes. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Now,  have  you  any  information  to  the  same 
effect  as  that  which  has  been  brought  to  me,  that  in  these  local 
prisons,  in  the  county  jails  and  the  city  jails  and  the  lock-ups,  there 
are  men  who  peddle,  who  sell,  these  opiates,  and  really  it  is  in  those 
places  where  a great  many  of  them  acquire  the  habit? 

Doctor  Squires.  I do  not  know  about  acquiring  the  habit,  but  I 
do  believe  this,  although  I have  no  absolute  information,  that  there 
are  some  institutions  of  confinement  where  men  stay,  where  it  has 


24 


PEOHIBITING  THE  IMPOETATIOH  OF  OPIUM 


been  reported  to  me  that  they  have  secured  the  drug  while  they 
were  in  the  jail. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  They  are  not  as  careful,  they  can  not  be  as 
careful,  as  they  ought  to  be? 

Doctor  Squiees.  I have  no  personal  knowledge  of  anyone  having 
acquired  the  habit  there  for  the  first  time,  but  men  who  are  drug  addicts 
when  they  are  arrested  tell  me  frequently  that  they  are  able  to 
procure  drugs  in  the  local  jail  prior  to  coming  to  Sing  Sing.  In  fact, 
I know  that  is  true,  because  some  are  brou^t  to  us  who  have  been 
in  jail  waiting  transfer  to  Sing  Sing  Prison,  who  are  very  much 
under  t^e  influence  of  drugs,  so  I know  they  have  had  it  before 
arrival. 

Ml’.  Hawley.  Do  you  know  what  percentage  of  those  committed 
to  reformatories  are  drug  addicts? 

Doctor  Squiees.  I do  not  know,  but  they  get  more  of  them  than 
we  do. 

Mr.  Poeter.  I have  those  records  here. 

Doctor  Squires.  They  get  more  of  them  than  we  do. 

Mr.  Porter.  Doctor,  in  your  testimony  before  the  Foreign  Affairs 
Committee  in  February,  1923,  you  made  this  statement: 

The  most  prevalent  drug  used  is  heroin.  Probably  75  per  cent  of  the  drug" 
users  admitted  to  prisons  take  heroin. 

Doctor  Sqltres.  That  should  have  been  96  per  cent. 

Mr.  Porter.  In  another  place  you  testified: 

I believe  that  the  large  per  cent  of  the  men  who  are  convicted  of~ 3rime,  who 
are  drug  addicts,  would  not  have  committed  the  crime  if  they  had  not  been 
influenced  by  the  drug  habit.  I have  never  seen  a user  who  did  not  desire  to 
be  free  from  the  habit;  in  fact,  one  of  the  most  grateful  patients  that  a physician 
has  to  deal  with  is  the  drug  addict. 

Doctor  Squires.  That  statement  holds  good  to-day. 

Mr.  Porter.  That  has  been  your  experience,  that  they  want  to 
be  cured  of  the  habit  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  They  are,  as  the  report  says,  the  most  grateful 
patients  we  have  to  treat. 

Mr.  Hadley.  In  that  connection.  Doctor,  you  say  that  after  the 
prison  term,  when  they  go  out  they  fall  into  the  habit  again,  after 
several  years  of  incarceration? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hadley.  After  they  have  had  several  years  of  treatment  they 
go  out,  apparently  cured,  and  yet  they  retain  this  desire  and  some- 
times lapse  again  into  the  habit? 

Doctor  ScuiREs.  Yes.  That  is  due  in  a measure  to  the  terrible 
influence  that  it  has  on  the  mentality,  which  to  my  mind  is  more 
or  less  permanent  in  some  types  of  individuals. 

Mr.  Ttlson.  What  treatment  do  you  use?  Do  you  use  the  “ taper- 
ing off”  process? 

Doctor  Sqttires.  Sometimes,  and  sometimes  not.  We- use  the 
tapering  off  or  the  gradual  withdrawal  of  the  drug  in  the  case  of 
those  who  have  either  organic  or  mental  conditions  which  make  me 
think  that  they  should  have  that  treatment.  Most  of  them,  however, 
I immediately  withdraw  the  drug  from.  I do  that  because  they  get 
a very  severe  reaction,  and  I base  that  treatment  on  the  thought  that 
inmates  have  told  me,  who  are  drug  addicts,  that  the  remembrance- 


PEOHIBITING  THE  IMPOETATIOH  OP  OPIUM 


25 


of  the  withdrawal  of  the  drug  has  been  so  vivid  that  it  is  a great 
deterrent  to  their  taking  up  the  d?ug  the  second  time.  We  have  never 
had  any  serious  results  from  our  treatment  in  that  way.  If  we  find 
that  we  can  not  do  it,  we  give  the  gradual  withdrawal,  but  if  we  can, 
I much  prefer  the  immediate  withdrawal  of  the  heroin  and  substi- 
tuting some  mild  sedative,  like  bromide  or  some  other  drug  of  that 
•character,  and  in  fact  when  they  are  coming  to  us  with  more  than 
the  one  drug  addiction,  like  morphine  and  heroin,  of  course  we  would, 
of  necessity,  cut  out  one  of  them. 

Mr.  McLaughlin.  Others  who  have  testified  have  stated  at  more 
length  than  you  have  that  the  use  of  heroin  induces  a criminal  state 
of  mind. 

Doctor  Sqihkes.  It  makes  them  reckless,  and  it  inflates  their 
personality.  They  are  a good  deal  like  a patient  with  paresis;  the 
world  is  theirs,  as  it  were.  It  inflates  their  personality  to  the  extent 
that  it  makes  them  have  a feeling  of  grandeur. 

The  Chaieman.  And  do  they  in  a measure  lose  their  sense  of  right 
or  vTong? 

Doctor  Squiees.  They  do,  indeed.  They  do  not  regard  the  prop- 
erty or  person  of  another.  But,  as  I say,  just  as  you  can  expect  that 
the  influence  upon  any  individual  depends  upon  that  individual,  the 
same  thing  holds  true  with  any  drug.  There  are  some  people  who 
take  heroin  and  would  not  commit  a crime  at  all,  and  there  are  others 
that  it  makes  it  easy  for  them  to  become  criminals. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Is  there  any  real  or  frequent  danger  of  fatal  results 
from  the  total  withdrawal  of  heroin? 

Doctor  Squiees.  I have  often  read.  Congressman,  of  such  results, 
hut  we  have  never  had  any  experience  with  such.  I have  often  read 
where  they  commit  suicide  or  do  themselves  bodily  harm.  We  have 
never  had  it  in  our  cases. 

Mr.  Oldfield.  Is  there  present  great  pain  and  suffering? 

Doctor  Squiees.  As  a result  of  the  vdthdrawal? 

Mr.  Oldfield.  Yes. 

Doctor  Squiees.  The  greatest  distress  is  the  upsetting  of  the 
stomach,  nausea  and  vomiting.  They  can  not  retain  anything  on 
their  stomach.  It  is  really  quite  pitiful. 

Mr.  Ceisp.  How  long  after  you  take  them  off  of  this  drug,  heroin, 
take  the  drug  away  from  them,  how  long  does  the  craving  remain 
for  the  drug? 

Doctor  Squiees.  I would  say,  offhand,  that  the  intense  craving 
probably  would  last,  maybe  for  a couple  of  weeks,  but  just  so  you  get 
them  so  that  they  can  take  nourishment,  they  are  all  right.  Of  course 
you  purge  them  quite  severely,  but  it  is  perfectly  wonderful  how  they 
will  gain  in  weight.  I have  had  men  who  were  drug  addicts  who  were 
greatly  emaciated  and  would  gain  an  average  of  10  pounds  a week 
for  a period  of  30  days. 

The  Chaieman.  Is  there  any  antidote.  Doctor? 

Doctor  Squiees.  I do  not  think  so.  You  have  got  to  treat  them 
as  the  case  presents  itself.  As  I say,  you  can  not  treat  any  two  of 
them  alike,  but  if  a man  comes  with  us  who  has  tuberculosis  or  some- 
thing like  that,  we  never  withdraw  the  drug  in  his  case  except  grad- 
ually, but  if  he  is  a type  which  we  study  and  make  up  our  minds  that 
he  is  one  who  can  stand  the  withdrawal,  we  withdraw  it  and  give 
him  bromides  or  other  sedatives,  and  he  gets  through  it  all  right. 


26 


PEOHIBITING  THE  IMPOETATION  OP  OPIUM 


Mr.  Porter.  Doctor,  you  have  described  the  suffering  of  the 
addict  when  the  drug  is  withdrawn.  Now,  assume  that  the  addict 
is  free  and  he  is  unable  to  get  the  drug,  is  be  not  in  a state  of  mind 
whereby  he  will  commit  almost  any  crime  in  order  to  secure  money 
to  buy  the  drug?  Does  that  not  explain  the  large  increase  of  crimes 
of  violence  on  the  part  of  addicts  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  I think,  as  I said  before,  that  drug  addiction 
produces  a mental  depression,  I mean  a lack  of  poise,  which  in  some 
is  more  or  less  permanent,  and  they  are  more  likely  to  come  back 
with  the  habit  than  those  who  are  of  stronger  mind.  The  craving, 
I have  been  told  by  those  who  are  addicts,  is  tremendous,  and  as  they 
get  back  with  their  old  associations  it  is  easy  for  them  to  pick  it 
up  again. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Doctor,  do  you  agree  with  Doctor  Richardson’s 
statement,  which  I understood  to  be  to  the  effect  that  this  drug 
serves  no  purpose  which  would  not  be  better  served  by  other  drugs? 

Doctor  SqmRES.  I feel  so.  I have  never  used  heroin.  We  have 
never  had  a grain  of  it  in  the  prison  hospital.  I have  never  prescribed 
it  on  the  outside  of  the  prison.  I am  satisfied  that  we  could  do  very 
well  without  it. 

Mr.  Hawley.  You  found  no  case  that  would  not  yield  under  treat- 
ment, to  other  kinds  of  treatment? 

Doctor  Squires.  I have  not.  And  I really  believe  that  this  reso- 
lution is  about  the  only  way  that  it  can  be  stopped,  by  stopping  the 
manufacture. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  In  the  event  that  the  legal  use  or  obtaining  of  it 
were  stopped,  and  you  would  get  cases  which  required  a tapering 
off,  could  you  use  other  drugs  for  that  tapering  off  process  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  I would  not  use  heroin  anyway  for  tapering  off. 
As  I say,  I have  never  had  a grain  of  heroin  in  the  prison  hospital, 
and  even  if  j’^ou  taper  off,  you  taper  off  with  something  besides 
heroin.  Heroin  is  three  times  stronger  than  morpliine. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Then  heroin  would  not  be  needed  even  for  the 
taj^ring  off  process  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  No;  I never  use  it.  As  I say,  we  have  never 
bought  a grain  of  heroin  in  all  the  years  I have  been  in  Sing  Sing 
prison. 

Mr.  Porter.  Just  one  other  question,  Doctor.  The  addict  gener- 
ally starts  with  a small  dose? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Porter.  And  it  gr&duall}^  increases  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  Increases,  because  he  has  to  increase  to  get  the 
same  results.  You  vdll  find  that  some  of  them  really  take  more  than 
they  really  ought  to  take,  or  should  take,  because  they  are  afraid  thej^ 
will  not  get  enough.  The  amount  that  they  take  is  really  tre- 
mendous. We  have  had  men  with  us  who  give  a history  of  taking 
as  much  as  80  grains  a da)".  I would  say  that  the  average  dose  of 
heroin  among  addicts  is  from  15  to  25  grains. 

Mr.  Hawley.  What  is  the  toxic  dose? 

Doctor  Squires.  That  depends  on  j'-our  make-up.  The  medicinal 
dose  is  one-twentieth  to  a sixth  of  a grain.  I would  hesitate  to  take 
a grain,  although  I might  take  it  and  get  away  with  it. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Do  you  happen  to  know  the  commercial  price  of 
heroin  ? 


PEOHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM  27 

Doctor  Squires.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea  of  the  commercial 
price.  I have  never  purchased  it. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Of  course  the  price  by  illegal  sellers  would 
be  way  beyoud  the  commercial  price. 

Doctor  Squires.  There  is  a considerable  waste  to  it,  of  course, 
especially  with  those  who  snuff  it.  You  can  see  that  there  would 
be.  In  other  words,  a man  buys  quite  a little  heroin,  and  if  he 
snuffs  it  he  loses  more  or  less  in  the  air,  and  it  drops  from  his  nose. 

Mr.  Treadway.  Is  that  a very  general  way  of  using  it  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes. 

Mr.  Treadway.  The  principal  way? 

Doctor  Squires.  No;  but  it  is  one  of  the  very  frequent  ways  of 
using  it,  by  snuffing  it.  And  among  the  criminals  it  is  no  uncommon 
thing,  if  they  can  not  get  a hypodermic  needle,  to  take  an  ordinary 
pin  and  poke  a hole  in  their  arm  and  take  the  heroin  and  rub  it  over 
the  hole.  We  find  that  very  common. 

Mr.  Dickinson.  Is  it  ever  taken  by  capsule  in  the  mouth? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes;  you  can  take  it  internally,  hypodermically, 
or  snuff  it.  It  is  a very  convenient  drug  to  take. 

Mr.  Dickinson.  But  you  can  take  it  by  capsule  in  the  mouth 
just  like  morphia? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes,  or  in  tablet  form.  You  can  buy  the  heroin 
powder  and  put  it  in  a capsule,  or  you  can  have  the  heroin  tablet 
made. 

Mr.  Dickinson.  And  swallow  it  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  Yes. 

Mr.  Treadway.  In  what  form  is  it  generally  peddled  ? 

Doctor  Squires.  In  powder.  They  sell  it  in  powder.  They  have 
what  they  call  “decks,”  heroin  put  up  in  so  many  little  powder 
papers. 

Mr.  Porter.  Doctor,  what  is  the  condition  of  the  arms  and  legs 
of  an  addict  who  has  used  it  hypodermically  for  two  or  three  years? 

Doctor  Squires.  These  addicts — we  are  so  cautious  about  this 
to-day,  it  being  such  a common  thing  in  prison,  that  when  a man 
arrives  at  the  prison,  the  very  first  day  after  he  has  taken  his. 
bath  he  is  brought  to  the  hospital  and  stripped,  so  that  we  can  go 
over  him  to  see  ivhether  he  has  any  old  scars  of  hypodermic  needles 
on  his  arms  or  legs  or  body.  Of  course,  those  who  have  been 
snuffing  it  might  get  away  with  it  and  I would  not  notice  it.  It 
is  a very  difficult  thing  to  tell  whether  a person  is  an  addict  if  he 
hasn’t  got  the  scars,  providing  he  only  tak&s  a little  bit  of  it,  as  long 
as  he  gets  a sustaining  quantity  of  it.  It  is  when  it  is  removed  from 
a man  or  he  gets  too  much  that  the  medical  man  has  a chance  to 
detect  it.  You  can  see  how  that  would  be.  But  these  men  who 
have  scars — and  I would  say  offhand  that  probably  95  per  cent 
of  them  have  some  time  or  other  used  the  hypodermic  needle  or 
used  a pin,  and  of  course,  not  being  careful  in  the  sterilization,  they 
get  up  an  abscess.  Only  recently  we  had  a man  come  in  who  had 
14  great  big  abscesses  on  various  parts  of  his  body,  which  neces- 
sitated my  opening  the  day  he  arrived.  He  had  evidently  bor- 
rowed a needle  and  did  not  have  it  sterilized,  and,  of  course,  neces- 
sarily it  got  contaminated  and  these  big  abscesses  formed.  But  we 
have  got  men  in  the  prison  on  whom  there  isn’t  hardly  a square  inch 
of  their  body  that  is  not  an  old  scar  of  an  abscess,  not  only  the 


28 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


extremities,  but  their  abdomen,  and  they  often  have  them  in  their 
back,  where  some  friend  has  injected  the  drug  in  their  back  to  get  a 
place  where  they  did  not  have  a previous  sore. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  all  you  care  to  say.  Doctor? 

Doctor  Squires.  That  is  all,  I believe. 

Mr.  Porter.  I would  like  now  to  have  you  hear  Dr.  Rupert  Blue. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  RUPERT  BLUE,  UNITED  STATES  PUBLIC 

HEALTH  SERVICE 

Mr.  Porter.  Doctor  Blue,  how  long  have  you  been  conected  with 
the*United  States  Pubhc  Health  Service? 

Doctor  Blue.  Nearly  32  years. 

Mtr.  Porter.  You  are  now  stationed  in  Paris,  I believe. 

Doctor  Blue.  I am  at  present  on  leave  of  absence,  but  I expect  to 
retimn  to  Paris  in  a short  time. 

Mr.  Porter.  Have  you  made  a study  of  heroin  and  its  uses  ? 

Doctor  Blue.  To  some  extent;  yes. 

Mr.  Porter.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  your  views  in  regard 
to  this  resolution? 

Doctor  Blue.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I am 
heartily  in  favor  of  the  bill.  If  enacted  into  law,  it  will  suppress  the 
manufacture  of  the  most  harmful  of  all  habit-forming  drugs.  During 
the  past  decade  the  heroin  habit  has  spread  over  a vast  section  of  the 
country,  particularly  among  the  younger  generation  of  the  large  cities. 
Adequate  measures  should  be  introduced  at  once  for  the  suppression 
of  this  evil. 

As  far  back  as  1916  the  Public  Health  Service,  as  stated  by  Mr. 
Porter,  prohibited  the  use  of  heroin  in  the  United  States  marine  hos- 
pitals and  dispensaries  under  its  control,  and  recalled  all  supplies  of 
the  drug  that  had  been  issued  by  the  purveying  station.  This  action 
was  based  on  the  belief  that  the  administration  of  the  drug  was  dan- 
gerous and  that  the  need  for  a respiratory  sedative  in  medicine  could 
be  met  by  the  employment  of  codeine,  which  can  be  used  with  less 
d.anger  of  creating  habituation. 

In  discussing  the  situation  with  prominent  medical  men,  the 
conclusion  was  reached  that  elimination  of  the  drug  would  not 
inconvenience  physicians  nor  deprive  patients  of  a useful  remedy 
in  disease.  It  is  gratifying  to  note  that  similar  action  has  been 
taken  by  the  medical  departnaents  of  the  Army  and  Navy  and  the 
Veterans’  Bureau. 

That  the  suppression  of  dangerous  and  unnecessary  drugs  is 
interesting  the  world  is  reflected  in  the  action  of  the  International 
Office  of  Public  Health  at  Paris. 

Mr.  Porter.  You  are  connected  with  that  office  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  United  States? 

Doctor  Blue.  Yes,  sir;  I am  the  American  delegate.  In  April, 
1923,  upon  the  suggestion  of  the  American  delegate,  this  representa- 
tive body  of  medical  men  issued  through  the  French  foreign  office  a 
circular  letter  to  the  signatory  powers  requesting  information  rela- 
tive to  the  advisability  of  suppressing  heroin.  Up  to  October  last 
replies  had  been  received  which  indicated  that  the  majority  of  the 
States  would  vote  in  the  affirmative.  The  Italian  delegate  presented 
the  results  of  the  inquiry  made  in  Italy.  Of  58  physicians  to  whom 


PBOHIBITING  THE  IMPOBTATION  OF  OPIUM 


29 


the  questionnaire  had  been  sent,  30  voted  in  favor  of  the  suppression 
and  18  against. 

The  question  of  the  suppression  of  heroin  has  also  been  considered 
by  a comittee  composed  of  members  of  the  Opium  Commission  and 
the  medical  section  of  the  League  of  Nations.  In  1923  this  com- 
mittee adopted  the  following  resolution: 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  a question  is  being  raised  as  to  the  possibility  of  pro- 
hibiting the  manufacture  of  heroin,  the  subcommittee  thought  it  might  give 
its  opinion  from  the  medical  point  of  view  and  might  state  that  the  mixed  sub- 
committee, composed  of  technical  experts,  agrees,  having  regard  to  the  small 
therapeutic  value  and  harmful  effects  of  heroin,  to  advocate  the  prohibition  of 
its  manufacture. 

This  resolution  will  be  considered  by  the  advisory  committee  of 
the  league  at  its  next  meeting. 

In  1920  the  Surgeon  General  of  the  Public  Health  Service  forwarded 
a questionnaire  on  heroin  to  some  of  the  leading  physicians  and 
surgeons  of  the  United  States.  Sixty-six  physicians  replied  to  the 
question  as  to  whether  heroin  could  be  replaced  in  medical  science 
by  the  substitution  of  codein  or  morphine.  Of  this  number  46  voted 
in  the  affirmative  and  20  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  Hawley.  You  think  that  is  a fair  average  of  how  the  medical 
profession  generally  would  vote,  or  would  there  be  a stronger  opinion 
in  favor  of  the  suppression? 

Doctor  Blue.  I think  if  the  facts  which  have  been  brought  before 
your  committee  to-day  were  generally  known,  the  profession  would 
be  pretty  nearly  unanimously  disposed  towards  its  suppression. 

Mr.  Hawley.  You  think  they  would  follow  the  conclusions  of 
the  American  Medical  Association? 

Doctor  Blue.  Yes,  sir;  in  this  connection  it  should  be  stated  that 
some  authorities  oppose  the  prohibition  of  the  drug  on  the  ground 
that  since  the  use  of  all  opiates  by  addicts  is  now  forbidden  by  law, 
it  is  very  doubtful  if  the  interdiction  of  heroin  would  have  any  notice- 
able effect  in  diminishing  its  use.  That  is  a very  strange  idea.  They 
also  assert  that  the  amount  used  at  present  is  the  smuggled  article, 
and  that  it  is  not  understood  how  its  interdiction  would  in  any  way 
interfere  with  smuggling. 

These  views  are  evidently  based  upon  a misconception  of  the 
meaning  of  the  present  movement.  It  is  the  hope  of  physicians,  both 
at  home  and  abroad,  to  secure  the  prohibition  of  manufacture  by 
international  agreement,  and  thereby  to  eliminate  the  drug  from  the 
field  of  therapeutics  for  all  time.  Besides,  it  is  not  at  all  certain  that 
all  heroin  used  by  American  addicts  is  smuggled  from  abroad. 

Mr.- Treadway.  Can  you  tell  uS  right  there.  Doctor,  how  difficult 
it  is  to  irianufacture  heroin  from  opium? 

Doctor  Blue.  No,  sir.  I have  no  special  knowledge  of  pharma- 


Mr.  Treadway.  It  seems  to  me  this  question  of  smuggling  would 
be  involved  in  the  ability  of  smugglers  to  transfer  the  opium  to  heroin. 

Mr.  Porter.  May  I suggest  this,  that  there  is  very  little  smuggling 
of  opium,  because  it  does  not  pay  to  do  it.  It  is  more  profitable 
to  smuggle  morphine  and  heroin  into  the  United  States.  There  is  no 
inducement  to  make  heroin  from  opium. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  several  more  witnesses,  Mr.  Porter? 

96182—24 3 


30 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OP  OPIUM 


Mr.  Porter.  No;  the  doctor  is  my  last  witness,  except  I have 
some  documentary  evidence. 

The  Chairman.  The  reason  I spoke  was,  I would  like  to  go  into 
executive  session  on  another  matter  before  we  adjourn  this  morning, 
and  I thought  if  you  had  more  witnesses  we  would  set  a further  hearing 
this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Porter.  That  would  be  entirely  satisfactory,  if  you  will  fix 
the  time.  The  doctor  can  complete  his  testimony  and  we  can  come 
back  this  afternoon. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  be  able  to  conclude  by  12  o’clock? 

Mr.  Porter.  No. 

Mr.  Treadway.  Mr.  Porter,  may  I suggest,  just  as  corroborative 
evidence,  that  the  appearance  of  the  representative  of  the  office  of 
the  Surgeon  General  of  the  Army  and  the  Surgeon  General  of  the  Navy 
might  be  worth  while,  or  do  you  think  it  is  unnecessary  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  I will  leave  that  entirely  to  the  committee.  I have 
here  the  official  action  of  the  Army  and  Navy  prohibiting  the  use  of 
the  drug. 

Mr.  Tilson.  They  both  issued  general  orders  on  that. 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes;  they  are  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Crisp.  I don’t  see  how  they  can  supplement  anything. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  suspend  this  hearing  at  this  time  and  go 
into  executive  session,  and  for  the  information  of  the  audience  I will 
state  that  executive  session  means  that  only  members  of  the  committee 
are  present. 

We  will  resume  the  hearing  at  2 o’clock  this  afternoon  in  my 
office  in  the  Capitol. 

(Whereupon,  at  12  o’clock  noon,  the  committee  recessed  until  2 
o’clock  p.  m.  this  day.) 

after  recess 

The  committee  reassembled,  pursuant  to  the  taking  of  recess,  at  2 
o’clock  p.  m. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Porter,  you  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Porter.  Mr.  Chairman,  I would  like  the  committee  to  hear 
Doctor  Blue,  former  Surgeon  General  of  the  United  States  Public 
Health  Service. 

Doctor,  will  you  give  the  committee  a definition  of  heroin? 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  RUPERT  BLUE,  FORMERLY  SURGEON 

GENERAL  UNITED  STATES  PUBLIC  HEALTH  SERVICE— 

Resumed. 

Doctor  Blue.  Heroin,  diacetyl-morphine,  as  its  name  implies,  is 
an  artificial  aklaloid  obtained  from  morphine.  It  w^as  discovered  by 
a German  chemist  in  1898.  For  some  years  it  was  believed  that  an 
agent  had  been  found  that  could  be  used  as  a substitute  for  morphine 
without  causing  constipation  or  creating  a habit. 

It  resembles  morphine  in  its  general  effects,  but  acts  more  strongly 
on  the  respiration,  and  is  therefore  more  poisonous.  While  heroin 
does  not  cause  constipation,  it  does  undoubtedly  create  habituation 
even  in  a greater  degree  than  any  other  drug. 

It  is  used  chiefly  to  allay  cough  in  certain  diseases.  Some  author- 
ities claim  that  in  addition  to  its  general  effect  heroin  inflates  the 
personality  and  exaggerates  the  ego  to  a dangerous  extent. 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


31 


It  may  be  of  interest  to  quote  the  opinions  of  a few  technical  ex- 
perts on  this  subject. 

Mr.  Porter.  We  would  like  very  much  to  have  those. 

Doctor  Blue.  Doctor  Richardson  this  morning  gave  here  the 
opinion  of  the  experts  of  the  American  Medical  Association,  as  formu- 
lated by  a committee  appointed  by  that  association  to  study  the 
narcotic  drug  situation  in  1920. 

Doctor  Bastedo,  of  the  Medical  Department  of  Columbia  Univer- 
sity, concludes,  after  an  exhaustive  investigation  and  prolonged 
study  of  these  drugs,  that  heroin  is  not  an  effective  or  safe  substitute 
for  morphine  or  codeine.  In  a number  of  tests  codeine  proved 
superior  in  its  power  to  allay  cough,  to  overcome  pain,  and  to  pro- 
mote sleep.  Like  morphine,  heroin  is  the  cause  of  a vicious  habit. 

Professor  Cushney,  of  Edinburgh,  states  that  the  advantages 
claimed  for  heroin  (action  on  respiration,)  by  its  advocates,  have  not 
been  confirmed  by  an  impartial  investigation. 

Mr.  Porter.  Cushney  is  one  of  the  leading  authorities  of  Great 
Britain,  is  he  not? 

Doctor  Blue.  Yes;  he  is  a professor  at  the  University  of  Edin- 
burgh, Scotland. 

The  Viennese  expert.  Professor  Knaffe-Lenz,  says  that — 

Heroin  is  incomparably  more  poisonous  than  morphine,  and  the  therapeutic 
dose  is  not  appreciably  smaller  than  the  toxic  dose.  For  this  reason  German 
pharmacologists  warned  physicians  from  the  beginning  against  the  use  of  this 
remedy,  and  pronounced  it  to  be  not  indispensable. 

It  therefore  does  not  satisfy  the  requirements  of  a substitute  for 
morphine.  He  goes  on  to  state  that  it  is  much  more  suitable  for 
abuse  than  morphine,  and  produces  physical  collapse  more  rapidly 
than  that  drug.  In  view  of  these  facts,  heroin  has  never  been  em- 
ployed to  any  great  extent  in  Germany  or  Austria,  and  is  hardly 
used  at  all  in  nursing  homes  and  public  hospitals  in  those  countries. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Why  is  it  a more  dangerous  habit-forming  drug? 
What  is  the  physiological  reason  for  that  ? 

Doctor  Blue.  I might  enumerate  the  causes  of  addiction,  in  reply 
to  that  question.  In  considering  that  phase  of  the  problem,  I would 
place  the  excessive  production  of  narcotic  drugs,  the  association 
with  addicts,  and  persuasion  by  drug  peddlers,  as  the  chief  causes. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Are  those  the  causes  that  lead  to  its  use? 

Doctor  Blue.  Yes.  The  small  dose  and  bulk  facilitate  smuggling 
and  secret  addiction. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Why  is  it  the  most  dangerous  habit-forming  drug? 
What  is  the  reason  for  that  ? 

Doctor  Blue.  It  produces  physical  and  mental  collapse  more 
rapidly  than  any  other  habit-forming  drug. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Does  it  create  an  appetite  for  itself? 

Doctor  Blue.  Yes.  Authorities  say  that  a dangerous  drug  is 
one  which  produces  a marked  tolerance  leading  to  an  increase  in 
dosage,  craving  for  the  effects  of  the  drug,  and  disregard  of  the  dis- 
agreeable after  effects.  Heroin  possesses  all  of  these  properties. 

Mr.  Crowther.  In  what  way  does  it  differ  from  the  derivative, 
codeine?  Codeine  is  used  in  one  proprietary  preparation,  I think, 
very  extensively.  How  does  it  differ  in  the  method  of  preparation? 

Doctor  Blue.  As  to  the  physiological  effects? 

Mr.  Crowther.  Yes. 


32 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OE  OPIUM 


Doctor  Blue.  It  is  not  exactly  the  same;  codeine  is  very  much 
weaker  in  its  action  and  is  not  so  likely  to  lead  to  habituation. 

Mr.  Porter.  Is  it  a pure  alkaloid? 

Doctor  Blue.  Yes. 

Mr.  Porter.  But  heroin  is  the  most  powerful  and  most  dangerous? 

Doctor  Blue.  Yes. 

Mr.  Croavther.  Codeine  is  a pure  alkaloid? 

Mr.  Porter.  It  is  one  of  the  minor  alkaloids  of  opium. 

Doctor  Blue.  There  are  authorities  who  claim  that  the  use  of  ^ 
codeine  does  not  lead  to  a habit.  1 

Mr.  Crowther.  I think  that  might  be  true"  because  I have  known 
of  its  use  for  many  years  and  by  a great  many  people,  and  it  did  not 
seem  to  create  any  habit. 

Doctor  Blue.  While  that  may  be  true,  I believe  that  whenever 
the  more  potent  drugs  have  been  thoroughly  controlled,  that  addicts 
will  take  to  codeine. 

Mr.  Crisp.  Does  the  use  of  heroin  shorten  the  life  of  the  addict; 
that  is,  does  the  addict  of  heroin  finally  die  quicker  than  the  addict 
of  morphine? 

Doctor  Blue.  The  drug  being  more  poisonous,  I think  it  does 
shorten  the  life  of  an  addict  more  rapidly  than  would  morphine. 

Mr.  Hawley.  The  gentleman  who  appeared  before  the  committee 
this  morning  representing  the  medical  service  at  Sing  Sing  indicated 
that  an  addict  of  heroin  was  practically  a useless  citizen;  that  his 
moral  sense  was  gone,  that  all  sense  of  responsibility  was  gone,  and 
that  he  had  lost  all  the  essential  qualities  of  manhood.  From  your 
observation,  do  you  agree  with  that  statement? 

Doctor  Blue.  I am  not  an  authority  on  that  phase  of  the  problem, 
but  am  strongly  inclined  to  agree  with  the  doctor. 

The  Chairman.  As  I understand  you,  you  do  consider  heroin  a 
very  much  more  dangerous  drug  than  codeine? 

Doctor  Blue.  I do.  f 

Mr.  Oldfield.  More  dangerous  than  morphine,  cocaine,  or  any  | 
of  those  drugs?  | 

Doctor  Blue.  Yes.  That  is  true.  f 

Mr.  Hawley.  Some  witness  this  morning  said,  I think,  that  { 
heroin  is  three  times  more  powerful  than  morphine.  V 

Mr.  Crowther.  Snuffing  is  the  favorite  method  of  the  addicts  ? ,• 

Doctor  Blue.  Yes;  it  depends  on  the  drug.  ; 

Mr.  Crowther.  I am  speaking  of  heroin. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  testimony  this  morning — that  that 
was  the  more  common  method  of  using  it. 

Is  there  anything  further  you  desire  to  elicit  from  this  witness  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  Nothing  further,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  more  witnesses? 

Mr.  Porter.  No;  but  I have  some  documents  I desire  to  put  in  the 
record,  and  I ask  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  while  I quote  a 
few  extracts  from  some  of  these  documents. 

Dr.  S.  Dana  Hubbard,  director  of  the  bureau  of  public  health 
education  of  New  York,  said,  in  a letter  to  me  of  February  13,  1924: 

I feel  that  in  medical  practice  heroin  is  a dangerous  drug,  and,  if  possible  to  be 
obtained  by  drug  addicts,  it  is  even  more  dangerous,  as  it  combines  the  stimulating 
qualities  of  cocaine  with  the  sedative  effects  of  morphine. 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


33 


Attached  to  his  letter  to  me  is  a statement  by  the  department  of 
health,  505  Pearl  Street,  New  York  City,  entitled,  “Is  heroin  a neces- 
sary drug  ? ” If  the  committee  desires,  1 will  read  it. 

Mr.  Hawley.  I suppose  the  conclusions  are  negative  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  It  is  very  strongly  negative.  It  says; 

Department  of  Health, 

New  York  City. 

SHOULD  THE  MANUFACTURE  OF  HEROIN  BE  INTERDICTED? 

It  is  our  opinion  that  interdiction  is  indicated  owing  to  the  promiscuous  and 
improper  use  of  this  drug  by  the  addict  and  the  rather  infrequent  use  of  this 
drug  in  general  medical  practice. 

The  narcotic  clinic  operated  to  study  first-hand  drug  addiction  by  the  depart- 
ment of  health  of  New  York  City  demonstrated  that  of  7,464  narcotic  drug 
addicts  over  90  per  cent  of  them  were  addicted  to  the  use  of  heroin. 

In  69  per  cent  of  the  total  clinic  applicants  the  drug  habit  had  been  acquired 
through  evil  associates.  The  vast  proportion  of  these  were  all  under  30  }^ears 
of  age. 

The  A.  M.  A.,  house  of  delegates,  expressed  the  opinion  of  physicians  through- 
out the  United  States,  as  follows: 

“That  heroin  be  eliminated  from  all  medical  preparations. 

“That  heroin  should  not  be  administered,  prescribed,  or  dispensed  by  physi- 
cians. 

“That  the  importation,  manufacture,  and  sale  of  heroin  should  be  prohibited 
in  the  United  States.” 

This  resolution  is  now  three  years  old,  and  there  has  not  been  a single  protest- 
ing resolution  from  any  associated  doctor  or  medical  organization.  It,  there- 
fore, must  be  the  conclusion  of  the  profession  regarding  this  action. 

The  recent  report  of  special  deputy  police  commissioner  of  New  York  City 
regarding  three  3'ears’  experience  in  scrutinizing  the  “dope”  evil  is  also  corro- 
borating, at  least  statistically. 

Of  9,637  persons  arrested  in  the  three  past  years  6,892  were  addicted  to  heroin 
or  cocaine,  singly  or  combined. 

The  average  age  of  the  addicts  in  1921  was  25  j’ears,  while  in  1923  it  ranged 
between  27  and  28  years. 

This  official,  also  a phj’sician,  also  reports,  that  only  2 per  cent  of  those  arrested 
can  trace  their  addiction  to  medical  treatment.  The  major  causes  were  found 
to  be  “curiosity',  morbidity',  and  criminal  association.” 

Hence  we  maj'  conclude  that  98  per  cent  of  nearly  10,000  drug  addicts  acquired 
their  vice  through  curiosity,  morbidity,  and  criminal  association  and  that  71  per 
cent  of  the  total  were  users  of  heroin. 

PUBLIC  SERVICE  AND  HOSPITAL  USE  INTERDICTED 

In  the  United  States  Army  the  use  of  heroin  has  been  interdicted  b\'  order  of 
the  Surgeon  General. 

In  the  United  States  Navy  the  use  of  heroin  has  been  interdicted  by  order  of 
the  Surgeon  General. 

In  the  United  States  Public  Health  Service,  the  use  of  heroin  has  been  inter- 
dicted by  order  of  the  Surgeon  General. 

The  health  commissioners  of  Chicago  and  New  York  City  simultaneously 
expressed  themselves:  “Stop  the  use  of  heroin  in  all  hospitals.  It  serves  no 
purpose  that  other  agents  can  not  accomplish  as  effectivehq  and  without  the 
attendant  possibility’  of  disaster.’  ’ 

Of  236  hospitals,  institutions,  and  sanitaria,  more  than  50  per  cent  have  re- 
quested their  medical  staff  to  comply  with  the  request  of  the  health  commissioner 
regarding  heroin. 

Prof.  E.  G.  Janeway',  Bellevue  Hospital,  1892,  advised  his  house  staff  against 
the  use  of  heroin,  praticularl.y  stating  that  heroin  used  in  penumonis  was  invari- 
ably followed  by'  a fatal  result. 

Prof.  Alfred  Loomis,  New  York  University,  professor  of  medicine,  taught  his 
students  to  “beware  of  so  insidious  and  baneful  a drug  which  more  often  was  a 
menace  than  a help.” 

Professor  Thompson,  New  York  University,  professor  of  materia  medica, 
taught  that  “it  -was  a dangerous  and  unnecessary  drug.” 


34 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


Prof.  A.  A.  Smith,  Bellevue,  professor  of  materia  medica,  informed  his  class 
of  students  that  heroin  was  uncertain  and  not  dependable  and  was  more  often 
a danger  than  a help. 

Professor  James,  professor,  Columbia,  informed  the  writer  some  years  ago  that 
he  had  never  had  occasion  to  use  the  drug  and  was  inclined  to  think  it  was  super- 
fluous and  that  being  used  as  it  was  by  addicts  it  was  a menace. 

Professor  Lambert,  Bellevue  Hospital,  an  expert  of  over  a quarter  of  a century 
on  habituation,  is  opposed  to  the  therapeutic  use  of  heroin. 

THE  GRAVE  DANGER  OF  HEROIN 

The  appalling  feature  of  drug  addiction  is  that  heroin  makes  addicts  quickly; 
that  its  victims  are  mere  children  in  years  and  experience;  that  through  insuffla- 
tion, ingestion,  or  subcutaneous  injection  its  effect  is  well  nigh  instantaneous. 

The  physiological  effect  of  heroin  is  to  benumb  the  inhibitors  and  make  of 
moral  cowards  brutal,  brainless  men,  without  fear  and  without  conscience. 

Lambert  expresses  the  effect  by  stating  that  it  “inflates  the  personality  and 
exaggerates  the  ego.” 

There  can  be  but  one,  or  should'  be  but  one,  answer  to  the  question — heroin 
should  be  totall\-  and  absolutely  abolished  by  all  nations. 

It  will  always  be  necessary  to  fight  the  use  of  opium  and  its  derivatives  in 
drug  habituation,  but  this  war  will  be  made  easier  by  the  absolute  annihilation 
of  this  baneful  and  useless  drug. 

Heroin  is  the  drug  used  by  addicts  of  over  95  per  cent  of  New  York’s  under- 
world (criminal  classes),  according  to  the  statistics  of  the  police  and  prison  sta- 
tistics, and  the  unfortunate  part  of  the  situation  is  that  less  than  1 per  cent  of 
these  miserable  creatures  acquire  the  habit  through  illnesses. 

Heroin  is  not  a necessity  in  either  medicine  or  art.  All  of  its  useful  qualities 
can  be  easily  and  safely  replaced  by  other  alkaloids  of  opium. 

It  is  earnestly  hoped  that  everyone  will  become  interested  in  this  effort  to 
awaken  the  public — here  and  abroad — to  the  necessity  of  preventing  the  manu- 
facture of  heroin.  This  in  the  interests  of  social  welfare  and  economic  safety 
from  criminal  imposition. 

The  only  way  to  successfully  fight  this  peril  is  through  legislation  forbidding 
its  manufacture,  and,  by  international  agreement  with  all  nations  participating, 
not  only  to  forbid  the  manuhrcture  but  to  prevent  importation  from  or  exporta- 
tion to  any  land. 

The  heroin  question  is  not  a medical  one,  as  heroin  addicts  spring  from  sin  and 
crime.  It  is  a social  problem  where  the  medical  and  pharmaceutical  and  allied 
professions  can  do  much  to  aid  in  solving  this  serious  problem. 

Society  in  general  must  protect  itself  from  the  influence  of  evil,  and  there  is 
no  greater  peril  than  that  of  heroin. 

S.  Dana  Hubbard,  M.  D. 

Mr.  Crowther.  Is  it  recognized  in  the  United  States  Pharma- 
copoeia, and  is  it  in  a general  way  dispensed,  on  prescriptions,  by  our 
physicians  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  No.  Heroin  was  discovered  in  1898;  it  was  adver- 
tised all  over  the  world  as  a substitute  for  morphine.  But  in  three 
or  four  years  the  medical  profession  discovered  that  it  did  not  have 
the  qualities  it  was  said  to  have  and  it  has  gradually  fallen  into 
disuse. 

The  Army,  the  Navy,  the  Public  Plealth  Service,  and  the  Veterans’ 
Bureau  all  have  forbidden  its  use,  and  the  American  Medical  Associa- 
tion has  declared  against  its  use. 

Mr.  Hawley.  One  witness  said  that  only  50  grains  had  been  pre- 
scribed in  New  York  State. 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes.  Judge  Collins,  of  New  York,  is  a very  well 
informed  man  on  the  subject. 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


35 


I have  a letter  from  him  in  which  he  says: 

February  11,  1924. 

Judge  Cornelius  F.  Collins, 

New  York,  N. 

My  Dear  Judge  Collins:  It  is  inj-  purpose  within  the  next  few  days  to 
introduce  a bill  prohibiting  the  importation  of  opium  into  the  United  States 
to  be  used  for  the  manufacture  of  heroin.  I have  before  me  a memoranda  on 
International  Control  of  Heroin  giving  the  opinions  of  many  reliable  authorities 
that  the  use  of  herpin  should  be  prohibited.  You  are  quoted  as  follows: 

“A  study  of  the  statistics  in  New  York  County  alone  indicated  that,  while 
the  evil  in  so  far  as  the  use  of  morphine,  cocaine,  and  opium  was  a serious 
one,  the  whole  three  of  them  put  together  were  not  nearly  as  serious  as  the 
growth  of  the  heroin  habit.  The  heroin  habit  has  grown  to  extremely  large 
proportions  in  a way  that  was  absolutely  appalling,  distressful  not  only  to  the 
well-being  of  those  addicted,  but  to  the  well-being  of  the  State,  because,  if  per- 
mitted to  continue  in  the  degree  in  which  it  has  taken  root,  it  would  threaten 
very  dire  results  and  conditions  which  would  call  for  general  public  activity.” 

I am  writing  a similar  letter  to  all  of  the  other  authorities  quoted  in  the 
memoranda  and  if  you  are  correctly  quoted  I intend  to  insert  your  views  in  the 
record  and  thus  avoid  the  necessity  of  inconveniencing  a great  many  people, 
who  otherwise  would  be  asked  to  testify. 

If  you  desire  to  add  anything  to  what  you  have  already  said  on  the  subject 
I assure  you  the  committee  would  be  glad  to  have  the  benefit  of  such  addition. 
A prompt  reply  will  be  appreciated  as  the  hearings  will  begin  the  early  part  of 
next  week. 

. Very  truly  yours. 

Chairman  Foreign  Affairs  Committee,  House  of  Represejitatives. 


New  York,  February  15,  1924- 

Hon.  Stephen  G.  Porter, 

Chairman  Foreign  Affairs  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Congressman:  I am  in  receipt  of  your  communication  of  February 
11,  1924,  relative  to  the  proposed  bill  prohibiting  the  importation  of  opium  into 
the  United  States  to  be  used  for  the  manufacture  of  heroin.  I am  correctly 
quoted  in  your  communication,  and  am  forwarding  to  you  a monograph  from 
which  the  quotation  was  taken.  It  was  written  while  I was  a judge  of  the  court 
of  special  sessions  and  chairman  of  the  drug  evil  committee  of  the  State  associa- 
tion of  magistrates.  Permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  a further  quotation  on 
the  same  subject  on  pages  9,  12,  and  13  of  the  monograph.  I believe  that  there 
is  a general  consensus  of  opinion  in  the  medical  profession  that  heroin  could  be 
discontinued  without  interfering  seriously  with  the  treatment  of  disease.  In 
other  words,  heroin  has  no  function  that  can  not  be  supplied  by  other  opium 
derivatives. 

I assume  that  jmur  bill  will  provide  for  the  prohibition  of  the  importation  of 
heroin  as  such,  as  well  as  opium  to  be  used  for  the  manufacture  of  heroin.  . 

I would  be  very  happy  to  be  of  any  further  service  to  you  in  this  connection. 

Faithfully  yours. 


Cornelius  F.  Collins. 


Mr.  Crowther.  Is  heroin  manufactured  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes. 

Mr.  Crowther.  Who  manufactures  it  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  All  of  the  pharmaceutical  chemists. 

Mr.  Crowther.  Did  we  not  have  a bill  at  one  time  to  prevent  its 
manufacture  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  To  prevent  its  importation. 

Mr.  Crowther.  This  bill  is  to  prevent  the  importation,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Porter.  No;  this  bill  is  to  prevent  the  importation  of  opium 
to  make  heroin.  All  of  the  alkaloids  are  prohibited,  and  thev  can 
only  bring  in  the  raw  material,  the  cocoa  leaves  or  opium. 


36 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


Do  not  forget  this,  gentlemen:  There  are  dishonest  physicians, 
just  the  same  as  there  are  dishonest  people  in  all  walks  of  life.  There 
are  dishonest  physicians  who  will  prescribe  this  drug  if  its  manu- 
facture is  not  prohibited,  and  price  would  be  no  object. 

Mr.  Hawley.  In  addition  to  that,  it  was  discovered  not  long  ago 
that  fake  colleges  are  issuing  fake  medical  certificates.  The  peo;^e 
who  have  taken  those  certificates  would  have  no  conscientious 
objections  to  dispensing  a drug  like  this. 

I desire  to  insert  in  the  record  the  reports  which  I have  from  a 
niunber  of  penal  institutions  in  this  country,  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  the  rapid  increase  in  crimes  committed  by  addicts. 

I have  here  a report  from  the  Leavenworth  prison.  Of  course, 
that  being  a Federal  prison,  and  many  of  these  cases  being  tried  in 
the  Federal  courts,  it  is  natural  to  find  a higher  percentage  of  addicts 
at  Leavenworth  than  in  the  State  prisons. 

The  report  shows  an  alarming  increase. 

United  States  Penitentiary, 
Leavenworth,  Kans.,  November  10,  1923. 

Hon.  Stephen  G.  Porter, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs, 

House  of  Representatives. 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  your  request  of  date  October  26,  1923,  relative -to 
number  of  prisoners  and  drug  addicts  in  this  institution,  I am  submitting  the 
following: 


Aver- 

age 

popu- 

lation 

Pris- 

oners 

re- 

ceived 

Viola- 

tion 

drug 

act 

Drug 

addicts 

Aver- 

age 

popu- 

lation 

Pris- 

oners 

re- 

ceived 

Viola- 

tion 

drug 

act 

Drug 

addicts 

1914... 

1, 019 

463 

15 

3 

1919 

1,895 

1,300 

57 

72 

1915 

1,160 

936 

15 

12 

1920 

i;890 

1, 147 

94 

64 

1916... 

i,  664 

1, 116 

48 

47 

1921 

l'  721 

1,205 

247 

64 

1917 

1,  677 

'705 

31 

29 

1922 

2,242 

l',  686 

498 

263 

1918 

1,  613 

1, 144 

53 

50 

1923 

2,473 

1,482 

717 

299 

From  July  1,  1923,  to  October  31,  1923,  we  received  417  prisoners.  Of  this 
number  138  was  for  violation  of  the  Harrison  Narcotic  Act  and  41  admitted  they 
were  habitual  users. 

Respectfully, 

W.  I.  Biddle,  Warden. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Have  you  made  any  inquiry  into  the  number  of 
addicts  committed  to  the  reformatories  in  the  several  States  for  first 
offenses,  and  do  you  know  what  proportion  of  prisoners  in  institutions 
of  that  kind  are  addicts  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  No;  I do  not. 

I have  here  a report  from  the  city  workhouse  of  St.  Louis,  Mo. : 


City  Workhouse,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  H.  N.  Morgan,  superintendent 


Number  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

1914 

2,809 

140 

1917 

2,775 

166 

1918 

2,603 

260 

1919 

2,079 

304 

Number  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

1920 

1,472 

176 

1921 

1,730 

242 

1922. 

2,074 

311 

1923 

1,800 

324 

PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OP  OPIUM 


37 


This  report  shows  a steady  increase,  to  which  I have  already  called 
your  attention. 

In  the  Atlanta  Penitentiary  there  are  Federal  prisoners  only. 
They  had  no  report  for  1914  or  1917.  Their  figures  are  given  in 
percentages. 

In  1918,  it  was  11  per  cent;  in  1919,  6 per  cent;  in  1920,  8 per 
cent;  in  1921,  15  per  cent;  in  1922,  20  per  cent;  in  1923,  18  per 
cent. 

This  report  shows  that  one-sixth,  or  perhaps  one-fifth,  of  the 
crimes  committed  by  men  sent  to  the  Atlanta  Penitentiary  were  com- 
mitted by  addicts.  If  •you  couple  that  with  the  facts  shown  in  the 
former  testimony,  which  is  to  the  effect  that  heroin  is  the  drug  used 
in  at  least  90  per  cent  of  the  cases,  it  makes  out  a very  damaging 
case  against  heroin. 


United  States  Penitentiary,  Atlanta,  Ga.,  A.  E.  Sartain,  warden 


Number  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

Per  cent 

Number  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

Per  cent 

1914 

453 

1920 

1,492 

128 

8 

1917  . 

812 

1921 

1,508 

235 

15 

1918 

1,216 

134 

11 

1922  

1,707 

352 

20 

1919 

tm 

71 

6 

1923 

1,847 

336 

18 

Mr.  Crisp.  While  the  statistics  are  appalling,  and  I am  heartily 
in  sympathy  with  the  bill,  is  it  not  true  that  the  penitentiaries  at 
Leavenworth  and  Atlanta  would  have  a higher  percentage  of  that 
class  of  prisoners  because  the  prosecutions  of  the  violations  of  the 
Harrison  Narcotic  Act  are  tried  in  United  States  courts  and  the 
prisoners  are  sent  to  those  penitentiaries  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  That  is  correct.  Then  there  is  another  feature  which 
you  should  take  into  consideration. 

We  should  not  caU  these  unfortunate  people  drug  fiends.  My  in- 
vestigation has  been  a very  thorough  one,  and  it  convinces  me  that 
95  per  cent  of  them  are  victims  of  misfortune. 

As  Doctor  Squires  told  you  this  morning,  the  addicts  want  to  be 
cured,  and  yet,  curious  as  it  may  seem,  the  addicts  always  want  to 
make  addicts  of  other  people. 

I venture  to  say  that  10  per  cent  of  the  addicts  in  the  penal  in- 
stitutions have  gone  there  voluntarily,  or  have  committed  some  minor 
offense  so  as  to  be  sent  to  a penal  institution  in  the  hope  that  the 
restraint  would  cure  them  of  the  habit. 

. Mr.  Treadway.  In  that  connection,  are  there  many  addicts  in 
private  institutions,  not  penal  institutions  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes;  but  I have  no  means  of  getting  those  figures. 

Mr.  Treadway.  No  doubt  there  are  many  of  them. 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Have  you  made  inquiry  as  to  the  number  of  addicts 
m insane  asylums  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  No. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Does  this  drug  produce  insanity? 


38 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


Mr.  Porter.  Undoubtedly. 

Doctor  Blue.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Hawley.  Do  you  know  whether  any  investigation  has  been 
made  as  to  the  percentage  of  inmates  in  the  insane  asylums  who 
became  insane  by  reason  of  drug  habits'? 

Doctor  Blue.  1 do  not  think  there  are  any  statistics  available  on 
that  subject.  Undoubtedly  there  are  persons  made  insane  by  the 
use  of  these  poisonous  drugs. 

Mr.  Chindblom.  Many  of  the  State  institutions  classify  the  inmates 
according  to  the  causes  of  insanity.  There  may  not  be  general 
statistics  on  that  subject,  but  I am  sure  you  can  get  that  information 
from  the  reports  of  the  various  State  institutions. 

Ml’.  Porter.  Take  the  Kansas  State  .Penitentiary  in  the  Middle 
West,  and  you  find  the  record  there  not  nearly  so  bad  as  the  ones  I 
previously  referred  to.  In  1914  there  were  21  addicts  out  of  734 
prisoners;  in  1923  there  were  42  addicts  out  of  1,138  prisoners. 


Kansas  State  Penitentiary,  Lansing,  Kans.,  A.  V.  Anderson,  warden 


Number  of 
prisoners  or 
inmates  in 
institution 
for  the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

Number  of 
prisoners  or 
imnates  in 
institution 
for  the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

1914. 

734 

21 

1920_  - - - 

617 

32 

1917 

736 

26 

1921 

748 

30 

1918. 

626 

28 

1922  . - 

998 

38 

wre 

466 

24 

1923  

1, 138 

42 

Note. — The  best  we  can  do  to  give  you  the  number  of  drug  addicts  will  be  to  refer  you  to  Table  No. 
9 of  the  biennial  report  we  are  sending  under  another  cover. 


The  prison  department,  State  of  New  York,  reports  as  follows: 


Prison  Department, 

Albany,  November  27,  1923. 


Hon.  Stephen  G.  Porter, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs, 

House  of  Representatives. 

Dear  Sir:  I inclose  questionnaires  which  have  been  filled  out  at  the  various 
prisons  under  this  department,  as  requested  in  your  circular  letter  of  October  26. 
Yours  very  truly, 

C.  F.  Rattigan,  Superintendent. 


Auburn  State  Prison,  Auburn,  N.  Y .,  E.  S.  Jennings,  warden 


Number  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

Number  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

1914 

716 

1920 

685 

11 

1917 

671 

2 

1921 

675 

27 

1918 

827 

4 

1922 

999 

23 

1919 

509 

10 

1923 - - 

546 

27 

PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


39 


Sing  Sing  Prison,  L.  E.  Lawes,  warden 


Numtei'  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of  , 
addicts  in 
same  year  ! 

Number  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

1916 

940 

10 

1920 

1,490 

33 

1917 

1,071 

1, 197 
1,073 

4 ! 

1921 

1,414 

1,450 

93 

1918 

11  i 

1922 

132 

1919 

13 

1923 

910 

55 

Nb  figures  are  available  tor  years  prior  to  1916. 


Clinton  Prison,  Dannemora,  X.  Harry  M.  Kaiser,  warden 


Number  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of  i 
addicts  in  ' 
same  year 

Number  of 
. prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

June  30 — 

June  30 — 

1914 

1,418 

1920--- 

969 

1917 

1,227 

1921 

1.207 

128 

1918 ■ 

1)311 

1922 

1, 380 

146 

1919 

1, 171 

1923 

1,381 

City  Workhouse,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  S.  0.  Lockwood,  M.  D.,  superintendent 


Number  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

/ 

j 

Number  of 
prisoners 
or  inmates 
in  institu- 
tion for 
the  year 

Number  of 
addicts  in 
same  year 

1914 

5,  577 

60 

! 1921 

2,  907 

84 

1917.*.  . 

5,  515 

59 

' 1922 

4,  398 

108 

1918 

3, 148 

60 

1 1923,  to  and  including 

1919.. 

2,376 

49 

I Nov.  13  

3,682 

87 

1920 

1,  ,542 

60 

i 

The  New  York  State  Drug  Control  Commission  made  a careful 
investigation  of  this  matter,  and  I have  two  excerpts  from  their  report 
which  I would  like  to  put  in  the  record,  as  follows: 

New  York  City  is  peculiar  in  its  form  of  drug  addiction,  for  over  90  per  cent 
of  its  drug  users  are  addicted  to  heroin,  the  strongest  and  most  powerful  of  habit- 
forming drugs,  the  most  detrimental  in  its  effect  upon  the  users,  and  the  habit 
which  is  most  difficult  to  combat.  (P.  6,  Report  of  New  York  State  Drug  Con- 
trol Commission.) 

In  the  recent  New  York  City  drug  clinic,  out  of  7,464  addicts  treated  from 
April  10,  1919,  to  January  16,  1920,  69  per  cent  were  under  30,  39  per  cent  under 
24.  (P.  16,  Report  of  New  York  State  Narcotic  Drug  Control  Commission.) 


RESOLUTION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  MEDICAL  ASSOCIATION 

The  house  of  delegates  of  the  American  Medical  Association,  at  its  seventy- 
first  annual  session,  at  New  Orleans,  in  1920,  adopted  the  following  resolution; 

“That  heroin  be  eliminated  from  all  medicinal  preparations,  and  that  it  should 
not  be  administered,  prescribed,  nor  dispensed;  and  that  the  importation,  manu- 
facture, and  sale  of  heroin  should  be  prohibited  in  the  United  States.’’ 

William  C.  Woodward,  - 

Executive  Secretary,  Bureau  of  Legal  Medicine  and  Legislation. 


40 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


I would  like  to  read  into  the  record  from  pages  9,  12,  13  excerpts 
from  an  article  by  Judge  Cornelius  F.  Collins,  justice  court  of  special 
sessions,  city  of  New  York  (December,  1918) : 

The  drug  committee  was  continued  last  year.  After  the  legislature  had  ad- 
journed and  a study  of  the  conditions  was  made  it  was  learned  that  instead  of 
the  drug  evil  decreasing  it  had,  on  the  contrary,  increased,  and  a very  deplorable 
state  of  affairs  existed  throughout  the  State,  and  particularly  to  a very  baneful 
extent  in  the  city  of  New  York.  A study  of  the  statistics  in  New  York  County 
alone  indicated  that  while  the  evil  in  so  far  as  the  use  of  morphine,  cocaine, 
and  opium  was  a serious  one,  the  whole  three  of  them  put  together  were  not  nearly 
as  serious  as  the  growth  of  the  heroin  habit.  The  heroin  habit  has  grown  to 
extremely  large  proportions  in  a way  that  was  absolutely  appalling,  distressful 
not  only  to  the  well-being  of  those  addicted,  but  to  the  well-being  of  the  State, 
because  if  permitted  to  continue  in  the  degree  in  which  it  has  taken  root  it  would 
threaten  very  dire  results  and  conditions  which  would  call  for  general  public 
activity. 

A studjr  of  the  facts  indicated  that  the  heroin  habit  strikes  praticularly  the 
youth.  While  a great  deal  has  been  said  of  addiction  on  the  part  of  children,  it 
is  quite  negligible.  In  the  children’s  court  a drug  addict  is  quite  rare.  At  the 
age  of  16  even  there  were  no  drug  addicts  for  three  months  in  special  sessions. 
Yet,  as  if  nature  drew  the  line,  from  16  years  of  age  on  they  were  quite  common. 
Between  the  ages  of  17  and  22  there  were  such  a large  number  of  heroin  victims 
that  the  average  age  of  victims  may  be  fixed  at  22  years,  and  that  average  age 
is  made  up  in  the  period  of  five  or  six  years — that  is,  the  years  between  17  and 
22 — thus  showing  that  it  strikes  the  youth  particularly.  We  know,  all  of  us, 
the  horrible  examples  of  those  conditions.  We  see  young  men  almost  destroyed, 
absolute  shadows  of  their  former  selves,  with  will,  memory,  and  understanding 
impaired,  “the  pale  youth”  Markham  describes  combating  in  frenzied  fancy 
their  “Phantoms  that  fling  wild  laughter  and  wild  tears  into  the  crater  of  the 
wasted  years,”  with  no  normal  sense  of  right  or  wrong,  with  a pronounced  atti- 
tude to  embrace  the  wrong,  even  though  contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  individual. 
At  least  one-tenth  of  the  whole  of  the  business  of  the  court  of  special  sessions  of 
New  York  County  is  made  up  of  drug  addicts,  those  possessing  the  drug  or  hav- 
ing dealt  in  it  in  some  way.  This  means  10  per  cent  of  all  the  cases  coming  into 
our  court,  a large  part  of  which  do  not  involve  moral  turpitude.  In  addition 
to  the  number  of  these  addicts,  as  such,  come  quite  a large  number  charged  with 
larceny,  assault,  unlawful  entry,  and  the  like,  who  are  nevertheless  addicts,  so 
that  it  is  safe  to  say  that  in  20  to  30  per  cent  of  the  cases  coming  into  the  court 
of  special  sessions  involving  moral  turpitude  the  culprits  are  given  to  drug  addic- 
tion in  some  form  or  other. 

This  is  such  a horrible  situation  that  it  brought  home  to  all  of  us  the  absolute 
necessity  for  the  doing  of  something  which  meant  business  in  the  attempt  to 
control  this  evil.  We  men  throughout  the  State  who  daily  see  the  procession 
of  these  pale  youths,  victims  of  the  drug  habit,  may  be  said  to  be  men  who  are 
not  unduly  worked  up  over  anything.  We  are  somewhat  like  an  undertaker, 
inured  to  the  corpse. 

On  page  13  he  says: 

Heroin  is  undoubtedly  the  most  pernicious,  both  as  to  the  number  of  its  vic- 
tims and  the  difficult3’  of  overcoming  its  ravages.  It  seems  that  the  habit  is 
more  quickly  acquired  in  the  use  of  this  drug  and  and  as  pointed  out  has  been 
most  lamentably  the  tempting  bane  of  the  youthful  victim.  Yet  this  drug 
was  unknown  until  a few  years  ago  and  on  its  introduction  was  claimed  to  be  a 
non-habit  forming  drug.  Some  experts  have  forcibly  contended  that  it  could, 
without  any  injury  to  medicine,  be  entirely  discontinued. 

The  victims  of  cocaine  and  heroin  have  habits  of  short  duration  as  compared 
with  morphine  addicts.  The  addicts  of  opium,  as  such,  do  not  seem  to  be  any 
greater  in  number  than  has  obtained  for  years.  In  fact  this  evil  seems  to  be  on 
the  decrease  even  amongst  our  Chinese  population.  The  causes  of  the  formation 
of  the  opium  habit,  etc.,  therefore,  did  not  call  for  special  inquiry. 

As  to  methods  and  efficacy  of  the  treatment  of  addicts  there  was,  as  heretofore 
stated,  a wide  divergence  of  opinion.  Pains  were  taken  by  the  committee  to 
obtain  the  judgment  of  all  who  had  made  a special  study  of  the  question  and 
particularly  of  those  who  had  practical  experience  and  an  opportunity  was  af- 
forded to  some  addicts  to  give  their  point  of  view.  Even  among  addicts  there 
was  pronounced  disagreement.  A number  testified  to  an  intense  desire  to  be 


PKOHIBITING  THE  IMPOBTATIOK  OP  OPIUM 


41 


•cured  and  that  they  had  on  frequent  occasions  made  an  effort  to  be  cured  without 
success,  trying  doctors,  alleged  cures  and  nostrums,  and  in  some  instances  un- 
dergoing hospital  or  sanatorium  treatment.  Some  of  them  acted  like  individuals 
to  whom  hope  was  lost  and  many  distressing  and  woeful  experiences  were  related. 
Quite  a few  individuals  appeared  who  testified  they  had  been  addicts,  were 
treated  in  public  institutions  and  believed  themselves  entirely  cured.  Their 
appearance  corroborated  their  testimony,  and  their  statements  as  to  return 
of  health,  gradual  and  substantial  increase  in  weight,  restoration  of  physical 
activity,  general  mental  awakening  and  firm  desire  to  make  good,  were  inspiring. 
Two  conclusions  may  be  drawn  safely  as  to  which  there  does  not  appear  to  be 
serious  conflict;  one,  that  there  is  no  known  specific  remedy  for  the  cure  of  drug 
addiction;  two,  that  the  cocaine  habit  more  readily  responds  to  treatent  than 
the  narcotic  habit,  and  given  that  the  sufferer  from  cocaine  reasonably  follows 
intelligent  medical  direction,  relief  from  acquired  habit  may  without  great  diffi- 
culty be  attained,  whether  treatment  is  sought  of  the  general  practioner  or  by 
sanatorium  or  institutional  methods. 

Mr.  PIawley.  It  seems  to  me  it  will  be  valuable  to  have  the 
statistics  showing  the  number  of  young  people  committed  to  State 
reformatories,  who  are  addicts  if  you  can  get  us  that.  « 

Mr.  Porter.  I am  trying  to  get  that  through  a retired  marine 
officer  who  is  in  charge  of  one  of  those  institutions  in  New  York. 

Mr.  Treadway.  I move  that  Congressman  Porter  be  allowed  to 
put  in  the  record  whatever  he  desires,  which  bears  on  this  subject. 

(The  motion  was  agreed  to.) 

Mr.  Porter.  The  resolution  passed  by  Congress  February  26, 1923, 
declared  that  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Hague  opium 
convention  was  that  production  of  the  raw  materials  should  be 
limited  to  strictly  medicinal  and  scientific  needs.  That  had  always 
been  controverted  by  certain  nations  owning  colonies  in  the  Orient. 
At  Geneva  we  got  them  to  accept  our  construction.  The  resolution 
passed  in  the  last  Congress  is  therefore  the  accepted  construction. 
In  November  we  return  to  Geneva  with  a plan  to  enforce  the  con- 
vention in  accordance  with  this  construction  and  interpretation. 

Mr.  Hawley.  And  the  passage  of  the  bill  is  an  essential  factor  in 
j connection  with  that  plan? 

j Mr.  Porter.  Yes.  In  case  this  bill  is  passed  the  United  States 
I will  be  in  a much  stronger  position  to  urge  other  nations  to  do  like- 
I wise. 

I am  printing  all  of  the  various  documents  connected  with  the 
narcotic  problem,  with  the  idea  of  having  all  the  United  States’ 

, activities  between  two  covers,  as  an  official  document  for  use  at  the 
conference.  In  the  last  conference  we  printed  a brief  showing  the 
attitude  of  the  United  States  which  was  quite  useful. 

Mr.  Hadley.  There  is  one  question  I would  like  to  ask  you  on  The 
Hague  treaty  limiting  opium  to  actual  medical  and  scientififc  uses. 
It  has  been  very  well  established  that  as  far  as  medical  uses  are 
concerned,  heroin  is  of  no  practical  service  that  can  not  be  as  well 
or  better  rendered  otherwise.  But  nothing  has  been  said  about  the 
scientific  phase  of  it  at  all.  That  being  the  form  of  the  treaty,  is  it 
claimed  that  heroin  has  any  scientific  use?  If  it  has  not,  then  the 
passage  of  the  bill  would  not  contravene  the  terms  of  the  treaty. 

Mr.  Porter.  I have  asked  a good  many  people  why  they  use  the 
word  “scientific”  and  I have  not  been  able  to  get  a satisfactory 
answer. 

Mr.  Hadley.  I reached  that  conclusion  when  we  had  this  matter 
under  investigation  in  connection  with  the  Jones- Miller  bill,  and  I 


42 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


asked  you  that  so  we  would  be  clear  upon  it,  and  if  anyone  claims  it 
has  a scientific  use,  in  view  of  the  provision  of  the  treaty,  we  ought 
to  know  it. 

Mr.  Crisp.  Doctor  Blue,  do  you  know  of  any  scientific  use  to 
which  it  can  be  applied  ? 

Doctor  Blue.  Some  of  the  alkaloids  of  opium  are  used  in  chemi- 
cal and  physiological  laboratories,  in  making  certain  tests  and 
in  animal  experimentation.  The  quantities  used,  however,  are  very 
small  and  need  not  be  considered. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Would  they  use  it  in  the  form  of  heroin,  or  are  there 
other  alkaloids? 

Doctor  Blue.  No;  we  have  other  alkaloids. 

Mr.  Hadley.  Then  this  would  not  be  an  exclusive  necessity  for 
that  purpose? 

Doctor  Blue.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Porter.  When  the  hearings  were  held  on  the  resolution  last 
year  the  resolution  received  the  indorsement  of  many  fraternal  or- 
ganizations, such  as  the  Grotto,  the  Moose,  the  Eagles,  the  Elks,  the 
Salvation  Army,  the  American  Red  Cross,  the  Order  of  Independent 
Americans,  the  Order  of  the  Eagles,  labor  organizations,  and  many 
others. 

There  is  just  one  more  point  I want  to  refer  to. 

About  three  or  four  years  ago  wide  publicity  was  given  to  the 
statement  that  the  per  capita  consmnption  of  opium  in  the  United 
States  per  annum  was  36  grains.  Apparently  the  author  of  this 
estimate  based  his  calculation  on  the  total  imports  of  opium  for  the 
year  1919  without  considering  the  large  quantities  of  opium  imported 
for  purposes  of  reexport,  or  the  important  facts  that  the  purchasers 
of  commodities  do  not  recognize  the  fiscal  year,  and  that  the  price 
of  opium  during  that  period  was  quite  low,  which  resulted  in  heavy 
buying  for  future  use.  For  the  purpose  of  correcting  this  erroneous 
statement  I desire  to  insert  in  the  record  a letter  from  Mr.  Edwin 
L.  Neville,  representative  State  Department  advisory  committee, 
Federal  Narcotics  Control  Board,  showing  that  the  amount  of  opium 
in  terms  of  morphine  content  is  only  seven-eighths  of  a grain  per 
capita  per  annum.  Inasmuch  as  Persian  and  Turkish  opium  con- 
tain between  9 and  12  per  cent  of  morphia,  the  correct  consumption 
of  opium  per  capita  per  annum  in  the  United  States  is  about  8 grains. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  February  13,  1934. 

Hon.  Stephen  G.  Porter, 

House  of  Representatives. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Porter;  Referring  to  your  inquiry  in  regard  to  reports  to  the 
effect  that  the  per  capita  consumption  of  opium  in  the  United  States  was  stated 
to  be  36  prains  per  annum,  I must  say  that  I am  unable  to  understand  the  basis 
upon  which  such  calculation  is  made.  The  amount  of  opium  and  its  derivatives 
used  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  is  given  in  full  in  the  reports  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  and  works  out,  in  terms  of  morphine  content, 
at  about  seven-eighths  of  a grain  per  capita  per  annum. 

It  is  possible  that  the  persons  who  made  this  calculation  of  36  grains  used  the 
total  import  figures  for  periods  antedating  the  recent  amendment  to  our  import 
and  export  law,  when  large  quantities  of  opium  were  imported  for  purposes  of 
reexport,  a practice  which  does  not  now  obtain.  It  is  well  known,  of  course, 
that  opium  derivatives  are  smuggled  into  the  United  States  as  well  as  into  most 
other  countries.  The  extent  of  the  smuggling  is,  of  course,  a debatable  question. 

I am  unable  to  understand,  however,  how  the  figures  could  total  36  grains,  even 
if  the  amount  of  smuggling  for  surreptitious  use  in  this  country  reached  a figure 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


43 


several  times  that  of  the  legitimate  consumption — a situation  which  seems- 
improbable. 

Sincerely  yours, 

Edwin  L.  Neville, 

Representative  State  Department  Advisory  Committee, 

Federal  Narcotics  Control  Board. 


Mr.  Collier.  Just  before  the  Harrison  Narcotic  Act  was  passed^ 
was  there  not  testimony  given  to  Congress  to  show  that  the  United 
States  was  using  more  opium,  relatively,  that  is,  opium  and  its- 
derivatives,  than  any  country  in  Europe,  or  was  that  true? 

Mr.  Porter.  I have  never  read  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Collier.  Our  statistics  have  been  more  accurate? 

Mr.  Porter.  They  were,  with  this  exception.  Here  is  a copy  of 
an  article  written  by  Sir  John  Campbell  in  which  he  said  the  amount 
was  36  grains,  and  it  is  not  anywhere  near  that. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  is  it? 

Mr.  Porter.  It  is  a little  over  8 grains  of  opium. 

Mr.  Collier.  There  has  been  a general  decline  since  the  enactment 
of  the  Harrison  Narcotic  Act? 

Mr.  Porter.  I do  not  think  anybody  can  answer  that  question. 
There  is  no  way  of  ascertaining  the  amount  of  these  drugs  smuggled 
into  the  United  States  except  that  the  amount  is  appalling.  We 
must  limit  the  production  at  the  source  by  international  agreement 
before  this  smuggling — the  root  of  all  the  trouble — can  be  stopped. 

Mr.  Collier.  It  has  been  a good  while  since  I heard  it  in  the  Hear- 
ings we  had  on  the  narcotic  bill,  but  my  recollection  now  is  that  there 
was  a good  deal  of  testimony  to  the  effect  that  a great  deal  of  addic- 
tion was  caused  by  using  patented  headache  medicines  which  were 
j found  to  contain  entirely  too  much  cocaine,  and  that  of  late  years  the 
j practice  of  putting  those  remedies  on  the  market  by  reason  of  the 
! passage  of  the  law,  had  stopped,  and  that  a great  many  of  those  reme- 
I dies  apparently  were  harmless  but  in  reality  did  a great  deal  of  damage, 
j Mr.  Porter.  Yes;  but  you  must  remember  this.  You  have  heard 
1 the  doctors  describe  the  horrible  agonies  of  the  addict  when  the  drug 
was  withdrawn  from  him. 

Take,  if  you  will,  an  addict  on  the  streets  of  Washington  without 
money;  he  can  not  get  the  drug;  he  is  suffering  the  tortures  of  the 
damned,  and  will  in  his  frenzy  commit  any  crime  on  the  calendar  to 
I get  money,  with  which  to  buy  the  drug.  That  accounts  for  the 
increase  in  the  number  of  addicts  who  are  being  convicted  and  sen- 
tenced to  penal  institutions  in  many  instances  for  crim.es  of  violence, 
j This  is  the  menace  to  the  public. 

The  Chairman.  What  control  over  the  manufacturer,  if  any,  is 
there  at  present? 

Mr.  Porter.  You  will  have  complete  control,  as  this  bill  is  based 
on  the  principle  that  the  profits  derived  from  violating  the  law  do 
not  offset  the  danger  of  losing  the  license  to  manufacture. 

I The  Chairman.  If  any  of  these  manufacturers  should  import 
: opium,  taking  it  for  granted  that  this  bill  should  be  passed,  and  pro- 
ceed to  manufacture  heroin  from  it,  the  privilege  of  manufacturing 
would  be. taken  from  them? 

I Mr.  Porter.  It  would  be  taken  away  from  them;  yes. 

I Mr.  Collier.  I have  had  some  physicians  tell  me  of  different 

I instances  where  an  addict  is  given,  by  a physician,  so  many  grains  of 
morphine  every  day,  enough  to  kill  four  or  five  ordinary  men,  and  I 


44 


PEOHIBITING  THE  IMPOKTATION  OE  OPIUM 


think  in  some  instances  they  claim  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  give 
them  that  morphine. 

Doctor  Blue.  While  undergoing  a cure. 

Mr.  CoLLiEE.  Perhaps  so.  Is  the  same  practice  pursued  in  con- 
nection with  the  cure  of  a heroin  addict  ? 

Doctor  Blue.  It  is  the  same. 

Mr.  Colliek.  You  still  give  him  the  heroin? 

Doctor  Blue.  I want  to  say  that  I believe  in  absolute  withdrawal 
of  the  drug  of  addication,  except  in  rare  cases  of  heart  and  lung 
diseases.  I do  not  believe  in  tapering  off. 

Mr.  Collier.  You  would  stimulate  them  in  some  way,  would 
you  not? 

Doctor  Blue.  The  absolute  withdrawal  method  has  given  the  best 
results,  and  has  been  found  to  shorten  the  course  of  treatment. 

Mr.  Porter.  I want  to  call  attention  to  one  other  matter.  This 
bill  is  somewhat  of  a departure  from  legislation  of  this  kind.  I felt 
inclined  to  follow  the  tax  principle,  such  as  was  followed  in  the  oleo- 
margarine cases,  but  I was  afraid  of  that  because  no  matter  how  high 
you  put  the  tax,  the  addict  would  get  the  drug.  I trust  the  committee 
will  give  considerate  attention  to  this  question. 

I recognize  that  Congress  has  no  right  to  prevent  the  manufacture 
of  heroin  by  direct  legislation;  that  is  exclusively  a right  of  the  States. 

We  have  a right,  of  course,  the  right  to  control  interstate  traffic, 
but  that  would  be  a futile  remedy  because  the  peddlers  can  carry 
upwards  of  150,000  worth  of  these  drugs  in  a copuple  of  trunks. 
So  we  are  really  forced  to  adopt  this  extraordinary  remedy,  namely, 
the  prohibition  of  manufacture. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  that  is  all  that  is  necessary  in  connec- 
tion with  this  particular  matter  ? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes. 

^Ir.  IVIiLLS.  You  consider  that  the  effect  would  be  the  same? 
Have  you  considered  framing  legislation  to  prohibit  importation 
except  for  certain  specific  purposes,  stating  it  in  the  affirmative 
instead  of  in  the  negative? 

Mr.  Porter.  No;  I had  not  thought  about  that. 

Ml-.  IVIiLLS.  I assume  we  have  a perfect  right  to  prohibit  the  impor- 
tation of  anything  which  we  believe  to  be  harmful.  We  clearly  have 
that  constitutional  right. 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes. 

Mr.  Mills.  What  I am  wondering  is  whether,  perhaps,  we  might 
be  better  off  if  we  prohibited  the  importation  of  opium,  unless  it  is 
used  for  certain  specific  purposes. 

Mr.  Porter.  The  trouble  is  you  could  not  enumerate  all  the  pur- 
poses. You  would  have  to  take  in  such  things  as  morphine,  codeine, 
paregoric,  Dover’s  powders,  and  other  preparations. 

Mr.  Mills.  You  would  have  to  enumerate  so  many  articles? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes. 

Ml-.  Hawley.  There  might  be  some  new  article  developed  abroad 
that  would  be  very  useful  and  less  habit-forming  than  those  now  in 
use,  some  derivative  of  those  now  in  use. 

Mr.  Mills.  Has  anyone  made  a request  to  be  heard  in  opposition? 

The  Chairman.  No  one  has  requested  to  be  heard  in  opposition, 
but  there  are  a number  of  letters  from  doctors  in  opposition.  I think 
we  got  a wrong  impression  from  one  statement  made  this  morning. 


PKOHIBITTNG  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


45 


So  far  as  I know,  the  manufacturers  have  not  interested  themselves 
in  this  matter,  but  the  clerk  tells  me  that  the  representatives  of  some 
of  the  manufacturers  were  in  attendance  upon  the  hearings  this 
morning,  and  that  they  expressed  themselves,  on  behalf  of  the  manu- 
facturers, to  the  effect  that  the  manufacturers  considered  this  a 
matter  for  the  medical  profession  to  settle,  that  they  were  only 
interested  in  manufacturing  such  drugs  as  the  medical  profession 
considered  to  be  of  beneficial  use. 

I assume  that  would  be  the  case  anyway  with  the  reputable 
manufacturers — and  so  far  as  I know  all  of  them  are — they  would 
not  want  to  manufacture  any  drug  that  had  little,  if  any,  beneficial 
use,  and,  as  a rule,  was  highly  injurious  and  dangerous. 

Mr.  Mills.  With  the  statement  you  have  just  made  in  the  record, 
that  will  correct  any  false  impression  that  may  have  been  created. 

The  Chairman.  None  of  the  manufacturers  has  asked  for  a hear- 
ing, and  none  of  them  has  expressed  himself  to  me  or  to  the  clerk  in 
opposition  to  the  bill. 

Mr.  Porter.  Mr.  Chairman,  with  your  permission  I will  put  in 
the  record  a letter  from  the  commissioner  of  the  department  of 
correction  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  then  I will  ask  you  to  hear 
briefly  from  Major  Brewster,  of  the  reformatory  prisons,  Harts 
Island,  N.  Y. 

(The  letter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 


City  of  New  York, 

' Department  of  Correction, 

April  3,  1924- 

Hon.  Stephen  G.  Porter, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Congressman  Porter:  I am  sending  Maj.  S.  W.  Brewster,  from  the 
reformatory  prisons,  Harts  Island,  to  represent  the  department  of  correction, 
New  York  City,  before  the  hearing  now  being  held  oh  your  resolution  in  con- 
nection with  the  narcotic  drug  evil. 

As  you  doubtless  know,  the  department  of  correction  of  New  York  City 
handles  more  cases  of  drug  addiction  than  any  other  correctional  or  hospital 
department  in  the  world.  I take  pleasure  in  advising  you  that  we  are  backing 
the  efforts  you  are  making,  and  you  can  be  sure  that  we  will  cooperate  with  you 
in  every  way  and  furnish  jmu,  and  your  committee,  with  any  information  on 
the  subject  you  may  desire. 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

Fred’k  a.  Wallis,  Commissioner. 


P.  S. — In  my  opinion  no  measure  is  too  radical  or  severe  that  would  prohibit 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  habit-forming  drugs.  Medical  and  scientific  use 
should  be  under  strict  governmental  control.  Heroin  must  be  siieedily 
suppressed. 

F.  A.  W. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  SIDNEY  W.  BREWSTER,  ASSISTANT 
SUPERINTENDENT  AND  DEPUTY  WARDEN  OF  THE  RE- 
FORMATORY PRISON  AT  HARTS  ISLAND,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


Mr.  Porter.  Kindly  state  your  full  name,  residence,  and  occu- 
pation. 

Mr.  Brewster.  Sidney  W.  Brewster,  major.  United  States  Marine 
Corps,  retired;  assistant  superintendent  and  deputy  warden  reforma- 
tory prison.  Harts  Island,  New  York  City. 

Mr.  Porter.  How  long  have  you  been  connected  with  that 
institution  ? 


96182—24 4 


46 


PBOHIBITTNG  THE  IMPOETATION  OF  OPIUM 


Mr.  Brewster.  I have  been  with  the  department  of  correctiori 
between  seven  and  eight  years,  and  at  the  reformatory  prison  at 
Harts  Island  three  years.  Before  that  at  the  naval  prison,  New 
York,  N.  Y. ; Mare  Island,  Calif.;  and  Cavite,  P.  I. 

^Ir.  Porter.  You  are  not  a medical  man? 

Mr.  Brewster.  No,  sir;  I am  not. 

Mr.  Porter.  What  are  your  duties  at  the  reformatory  prison? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Deputy  warden  and  in  charge  part  of  the  time. 
I have  also  been  in  charge  of  the  New  York  City  reformatory.  New 
Hampton,  N.  Y.,  and  women’s  workhouse,  Blackwells  Island.  I also 
have  some  special  duty  with  the  commissioner.  Commissioner 
Wallis  sent  me  down  to  appear  before  the  committee  to  represent 
our  department.  The  department  of  correction.  New  York  City, 
handles  more  cases  of  drug  addiction  through  their  coming  into  contact 
with  the  law  than  any  other  prison,  hospital,  or  sanitary  department 
in  the  world.  I have  our  records  for  the  year  1923  to  present. 

Mr.  Porter.  In  the  performance  of  your  duties  have  you  come 
in  contact  with  persons  suffering  from  drug  addiction? 

Mr.  Brewster.  I have  come  in  contact  with  a large  number  of 
cases. 

Mr.  Porter.  Will  you  kindly  state  in  your  own  way  your 
obsei'vations  in  regard  to  this  matter,  with  special  reference  to  the 
use  of  the  drug  heroin  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  I am  speaking  now  from  the  prison  standpoint. 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes,  that  is  what  we  want. 

Mr.  Brewster.  Approximately  60  per  cent  of  the  inmates  at  the 
reformatory  prison  at  Harts  Island,  and  100  per  cent  of  the  inmates 
at  Biker’s  Island,  where  they  go  first  for  the  cure,  are  drug  addicts; 
and  about  the  same  proportion  at  the  penitentiary  as  Harts  Island. 
At  the  Woman’s  Workhouse,  Blackwells  Island,  practically  all 
prostitutes  committed  are  drug  addicts.  Sixty  to  80  per  cent 
of  all  committed  here  are  drug  addicts.  Of  those  drug  addicts,  from 
90  to  95  per  cent  use  heroin.  Thirty  or  40  years  ago,  from  records 
left  by  Police  Inspector  Thomas  Byrnes,  addiction  in  those  days 
was  chiefly  opium  smoking,  with  occasionally  a morphine  addict; 
the  addiction  was  then  chiefly  in  the  underworld.  At  the  present 
time,  while  a very  large  percentage  of  criminals  are  drug  users, 
drug  addiction  has  spread  to  an  alarming  extent  to  all  walks  of 
society  and  to  those  who  rarely  come  in  conflict  with  the  law.  It 
is  impossible  to  state  the  number  of  drug  addicts  in  the  United 
States,  but  from  estimates  based  upon  incomplete  records  of  the 
amount  of  drugs  illegally  used,  the  number  would  be  approximately 
1,000,000.  Some  authorities  give  a higher  estimate;  a few  a lesser 
one.  • 

Cocaine  was  brought  to  this  country  first  about  1880,  and  heroin 
about  1900,  although  the  use  of  heroin  did  not  become  very  great 
until  about  1911  or  1912.  Along  in  the  late  nineties,  when  the 
United  States  and  State  authorities  endeavored  to  suppress  opium 
smoking,  drug  addiction  became  more  active  along  the  line  of  mor- 
phine, together  with  cocaine.  About  1912  heroin,  which  up  to  that 
time  had  been  supposed  not  to  be  a habit-forming  drug,  began  to  be 
evidenced. 

In  1910  or  1911  and  up  to  four  or  five  years  ago  in  the  underworld 
the  drug  chiefly  used  was  morphine  and  cocaine,  morphine  being 


PKOHIBITTNG  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


47 


'I  termed  a necessary  drug  and  cocaine  a luxury.  In  the  last  four  or 
i'  five  years  heroin  has  gradually  succeeded  morphine  and  to  quite 
li  some  extent  cocaine.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  heroin  is  approxi- 
I mately  three  times  as  powerful  as  morphine;  and  further,  the  addict 
in  taking  heroin  gets  some  of  the  effects  which  he  ordinarily  would 
f get  from  cocaine. 

Mr.  Porter.  He  seems  to  get  the  joint  effect  of  cocaine  and 
morphine  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Yes,  sir.  Some  addicts  in  the  criminal  world  and 
also  in  what  we  call  the  sporting  world  used  to  use  morphine  and 
cocaine  in  conjunction.*  For  instance,  we  had  a case  some  time  ago 
of  an  actor  who  used  cocaine  to  stimulate  or  as  he  expressed  it  “to 
jazz  up”  in  the  morning.  That  would  keep  him  awake  until  long 
past  midnight.  Then  he  would  want  to  go  to  sleep  and  the  cocaine 
would  keep  him  awake,  so  he  would  take  a shot  of  morphine  to  go 
to  sleep.  Then  along  about  11  or  12  o’clock  in  the  morning  again 
he  would  get  up  feeling  rotten,  and  he  would  take  a shot  or  a sniff 
of  cocaine  and  be  ready  for  rehearsal  in  whatever  work  he  had  to  do. 

Now,  at  the  time  of  the  Rosenthal  murder  in  New  York,  in  which 
Police  Lieutenant  Becker  was  implicated,  two  or  three  of  the  men 
who  fired  the  shots  were  under  the  influence  of  cocaine  at  the  time. 
At  the  present  time,  in  one  of  the  most  recent  crimes  of  violence, 
the  Diamond  case,  in  New  York,  which  involved  the  robbing  and 
murder  of  two  bank  messengers  in  broad  daylight,  two  of  the  actual 
, perpetrators  of  the  crime  were  under  the  influence  of  heroin.  That 
shows  the  condition.  In  man\^  cases  the  leaders  of  the  various  gangs 
of  gunmen  do  not  use  narcotics  themselves  but  when  they  send  out 
members  of  the  gang  on  a crime  to  commit  murder  or  robbery  they 
see  that  they  are  well  charged  before  they  go. 

Mr.  Porter.  With  what? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Usually  with  heroin,  although  cocaine  is  still  used. 
There  is  still  a large  amount  of  cocaine  used.  It  is  a luxury  drug. 

I Cocaine,  strictly  speaking,  is  not  a habit-forming  drug  in  the  same 
j Avay  that  opiates  are. 

I Mr.  Porter.  And  to  a certain  extent  it  is  easier  to  cure? 

i Mr.  Brewster.  It  is  easier  to  cure.  But  it  docs  not  develop  a 

habit  or  what  we  call  the  withdrawal  symptoms  occurring  in  opium 
I addiction  and  which  are  very  conspicuous. 

j Mr.  Porter.  But  it  is  still  treated  as  one  of  the  serious  addictions  ? 

I Mr.  Brewster.  Yes,  sir.  The  police  records  for  1923  show  that 

there  were  approximately  6,000  arrests  in  New  York  City  in  connec- 
. tion  with  drugs,  or  in  which  drugs  were  a factor.  The  department 
i of  correction  received  from  the  courts  in  the  year  1923.  2,349  males 
i and  314  women,  making  a total  of  2,663  which  were  confined  and 
treated  during  the  year.  This  is  about  10  per  cent  more  than  the 
year  1922,  and  the  increase  would  undoubtedly  have  been  mucn 

■ larger,  except  at  the  present  time  the  State  laws  on  drugs  have  been 
' repealed,  and  the  only  means  by  which  we  can  control  drug  addiction 

in  New  York  City  is  through  the  sanitary  laws.  We  did  have  a drug 

■ law  in  the  State,  but  that  has  been  repealed  and  now  we  have  to  rely 
, upon  violation  of  the  sanitary  laws. 

Now,  of  these  cases  just  mentioned,  under  section  135  of  the  sani- 
i tary  code  of  New  York  City,  which  covers  persons  self-committed 
; for  a cure,  we  received  427  people,  370  men  and  57  women ; the  balance 


48 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


being  committed  under  the  other  section,  section  133  of  the  sanitary 
code  (possessing  or  selling  drugs) . Now,  of  the  427  persons  who  were 
self-committed,  176  of  these  persons  had  previous  convictions  or 
sentences  for  possessing  or  selling  drugs,  under  section  133.  One 
hundred  and  sixty-seven  of  these  self-committed  persons  had  served 
previous  sentences  for  offenses  other  than  drugs,  misdemeanors,  and^ 
felonies.  Of  these  same  self-committed  persons,  210  were  committed 
the  first  time  for  a cure,  114  the  second,  48  the  third,  31  the  fourth 
time,  10  the  fifth  time,  9 the  sixth  time,  and  5 the  seventh  time. 

I might*  state,  on  the  question  of  self-committed  persons  for  the 
cm-e  of  drug  addiction,  that  they  are  generally  from  the  underworld. 
You  can  hardly  expect  a person  suffering  with  drug  addiction  who 
holds  a responsible  position  in  society  or  business,  to  come  to  you 
and  ask  to  be  self-committed  to  an  institution  of  our  kind.  We  do 
not  get  that  type  at  all. 

Mr.  Porter.  Doctor  Squires  has  testified  that  they  are  the  most 
gratefid  of  patients,  and  all  evidence  an  intense  desire  to  throw  off 
the  habit,  and  therefore  voluntarily  allow  themselves  to  be  put  under 
the  restraint  in  the  hope  of  being  cured  of  the  disease.  Is  that 
substantially  correct? 

Mr.  Brewster.  That  happens  in  a great  many  cases.  Of  course, 
those  are  the  ones  who  come  for  the  cure  voluntarily.  Those  cases  not 
voluntarily  committed  have  to  take  the  “cure”  in  which  the  gradual 
reduction  treatment  is  given.  We  usually  get  them  off  the  drug  in 
five  to  seven  da3^s,  according  to  circumstances.  Any  drug  addict 
prefers  the  gradual  reduction  treatment  to  what  is  called  by  them 
“cold  turkej"”  where  the  drug  is  stopped  at  once. 

Mr.  Porter.  How  would  a habitue  of  the  underworld  of  New 
York  go  about  it  to  have  himself  committed  to  jmur  institution  for 
treatment  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  If  he  went  to  the  judge  of  general  or  special 
sessions  he  could  be  committed;  or,  as  manj'  times  happens,  he  is 
picked  up  for  some  other  chai'ge  and  then  afterwards  discharged  by 
the  magistrate  or  judge,  but  decides  at  that  time  to  take  the  cure. 
We  have  had  cases,  however,  where  they  were  in  very  bad  shape  from 
wanting  the  drug,  and  they  were  committed  so  that  their  suft’ering 
Avould  not  be  so  hard  at  the  time,  because  we  put  them  on  a reduc- 
tion treatment.  The  first  thing  we  do  when  they  enter  our  insti- 
tution, if  they  are  suffering,  is  to  give  them  a shot. 

Mr.  Porter.  Perhaps  there  is  also  another  reason  for  putting  them 
under  treatment  when  they  are  suffering  from  withdrawal  symptoms 
due  to  inability  to  secure  the  drug,  and  that  is  the  danger  that  they 
will  commit  some  crime  in  an  effort  to  secure  money  with  which  to 
buv  the  drug. 

Mr.  Brewster.  That  is  undoubtedly  true.  In  my  judgment,  that 
is  the  serious  point  in  the  whole  matter.  Much  of  the  crime  in  New 
York  City  and  thoughout  the  whole  country  is  committed  to  get 
mone}^  to  procure  narcotic  drugs. 

Mr.  Porter.  Describe  briefly  the  mental  and  physical  condition 
of  an  addict  suffering  from  the  withdrawal  of  the  drug? 

Mr.  Brewster.  You  mean  in  the  process  of  what  we  call  our 
“cure” ? 

Mr.  Porter.  No;  not  exactly.  You  have  seen  cases  where  the 
drug  has  been  abruptly  withdrawn  from  a confirmed  addict  for,  say, 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


49 


four  or  five  days.  Are  you  sufficiently  familiar  with  that  class  of 
cases  to  describe  the  mental  and  physical  condition  of  the  addict 
during  those  four  or  five  days? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Well,  that  is  rather  hard  to  describe  in  medical 
terms. 

Mr.  Porter.  I mean  just  as  a layman  would  describe  it.  Does  it 
require  any  restraint  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Yes;  they  require  restraint.  They  are  very 
nervous. 

Mr.  Porter.  Is  there  nausea  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Nausea;  vomiting;  profuse  sweats.  They  are, 
you  might  say,  almost  like  a caged  animal  sometimes. 

Mr.  Porter.  And  mentally  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Mentally,  I think  they  are  in  almost  as  pitiful 
a condition  as  a person  with  delirium  tremens.  There  are  times 
when  they  will  do  anything  to  get  the  drug. 

Mr.  Porter.  Now,  from  your  experience  as  a criminologist,  do 
you  believe  that  many  of  the  crimes  of  violence  committed  in  and 
about  New  York  City  are  due  to  addicts  who  are  unable  to  secure 
the  drugs,  and  in  their  frenzy  commit  these  crimes  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  money  with  which  to  buy  the  drugs? 

Mr.  Brewster.  In  my  opinion,  I think  there  are  a large  number. 

Mr.  Porter.  Am  I correct  in  this  conclusion?  That  the  purpose 
of  the  confirmed  criminal  in  taking  heroin  before  perpetrating  a 
crime  of  violence  is  to  relieve  himself  of  all  moral  restraint  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  That  is  my  opinion;  and  that  is  also  true  of 
cocaine.  I would  say  this,  that  users  of  morphine,  while  they  do 
commit  crimes,  they  are  usually  not  crimes  against  the  person: 
they  are  not  usually  crimes  of  violence.  They  are  such  crunes  as 
theft,  forgery,  or  something  along  that  line.  The  man  who  uses 
heroin  is  a potential  murderer,  the  same  as  the  cocaine  user;  he  loses 
all  consciousness  of  moral  responsibility,  also  fear  of  consequences. 

Mr.  Porter.  Now,  the  testimony  seems  to  indicate  that  a great 
many  of  the  heroin  addicts  are  quite  young  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  Porter.  In  the  table  which  you  have  presented  for  the  use  of 
the  committee,  do  you  show  the  ages  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  I have  not  in  those  tables.  I can  get  you  some 
data  on  it. 

Mr.  Porter.  Could  you  add  that  to  the  tables  you  have  already 
supplied  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Yes,  sir.  I got  up  this  data  hastily. 

Mr.  Porter.  Roughly,  what  is  the  age  of  these  addicts;  between 
what  ages  do  they  range  ? 

Mr.  Brewster.  We  have  them  as  young  as  16.  I have  known  of 
cases  where  they  were  much  younger,  but  they  are  comparatively 
few. 

Mr.  Porter.  Were  they  sent  to  the  institution? 

Mr.  Brewster.  No,  sir.  We  do  not  get  them  under  16.  We  have 
cases  of  men  and  women  who  are  60  or  70  years  of  age,  but  they  are 
very  few.  I remember  one  case  of  a former  well-known  jockey — I 
do  not  recall  his  name  now — who  was  70  years  old  and  who  had  used 
morphine  for  over  40  years,  but  that  is  very  much  the  exception. 
Drug  addicts  usually  die  early,  either  from  overdose  of  drugs,  tuber- 


50 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


cular  troubles,  or  other  troubles  with  which  drug  addiction  has  prob- 
ably some  connection.  The  use  of  opiates  stops  a number  of  the 
bodily  secretions  and  it  has  an  effect  on  practically  all  the  various 
organs. 

Mr.  Porter.  The  medical  testimony  seems  to  indicate  that  the 
constant  use  of  these  drugs  finally  weakens  one  of  the  essential  organs 
of  the  body,  and  due  to  the  failure  of  that  organ  to  function,  death 
follows.  Is  that  about  correct? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Yes. 

Mr.  Porter.  Now,  an  addict  to  morphia  may,  if  he  is  cautious  and 
careful  and  does  not  take  an  overdose,  live  many  years;  but  an  addict 
to  cocaine  or  heroin  has  his  life  very  materially  shortened? 

Mr.  Brewster.  That  is  so. 

Mr.  Porter.  Have  you  stated  the  percentage  of  these  inmates  who 
are  addicted  to  heroin? 

Mr.  Brewster.  It  is  approximately  at  the  present  time  between 
90  per  cent  and  95  per  cent. 

Mr.  Porter.  And  in  1900  there  were  no  heroin  addicts? 

Mr.  Brewster.  There  were  no  heroin  addicts  in  1900.  It  was 
first  noticed  about  1911  or  1912,  when  some  of  the  sanatoriums  treat- 
ing alcoholism  noticed  that  drug  addiction  was  getting  to  he  quite  a 
proposition.  About  this  time  the  prisons  and  correctional  institu- 
tions found  that  they  were  getting  to  have  a problem  on  their  hands. 
But  it  has  only  heen  in  the  last  six  or  seven  years  that  heroin  has 
really  come  to  the  front  as  it  is  now. 

Mr.  Porter.  At  the  present  time  heroin  has  practically  taken  the 
place  of  morphia  and  cocaine? 

Mr.  Brewster.  That  is  in  the  underworld,  although  there  are 
some  that  will  take  cocaine  and  heroin.  Morphine,  heroin,  and 
cocaine  are  used  illegally  outside  the  criminal  world.  The  spread  of 
habit-forming  drugs  the  last  few  years  has  been  alarming,  and  specially 
since  the  war. 

Mr.  Porter.  And  also  some  that  take  cocaine  and  morphia? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Cocaine  and  morphia,  and  occasionally  we  get 
a codeine  addict,  but  that  is  a very  rare  thing.  We  also  get  a few 
opium  smokers. 

Ml’.  Porter.  Roughly  speaking,  what  percentage  of  the  inmates 
of  the  institution  are  between  the  ages  of,  say,  16  and  25? 

Mr.  Brewster.  Fully  50  per  cent  to  60  per  cent.  Now,  the 
reason  that  we  get  so  many  more  cases  of  drug  addiction  in  our 
New  York  City  institutions  instead  of  Sing  Sing  Prison  in  the  other 
State  institution  is  because  we  have  to  handle  those  cases  through 
the  violation  of  the  Sanitary  Code  of  New  York  City,  which  provides 
for  misdemeanors.  Sing  Sing  gets  the  professional  criminal.  We 
do  get  a good  many  felony  cases,  though,  at  our  penitentiary,  Black- 
wells Island,  about  425  last  year. 

Mr.  Porter.  In  case  an  addict  starts  with  a small  dose,  but  the 
demands  of  the  system  compel  him  to  increase  the  dose  from  time 
to  time  until  he  is  taking  enough  at  one  dose  to  cause  the  deafti  of 
from  10  to  50  normal  persons;  assuming  this  to  be  the  fact,  do  you 
know  what  result  would  follow  in  case  one  of  these  addicts  had  ceased 
using  the  drug  for,  say,  6 months  or  a year,  and  then  relapsed  and 
took  one  of  the  large  doses  which  he  was  accustomed  to  take  during 
the  period  of  his  addiction?  What  would  be  the  result? 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


51 


Mr.  Brewster.  It  would  kill  him.  I had  a case  come  under  my 
personal  knowledge  a few  weeks  ago.  The  tolerance  which  is  built 
up  by  the  habitual  use  ol  opiates  is  apparently  lost  very  soon  after 
the  addict  is  take  off  the  drug.  The  immunity  that  they  seem  to 
have  against  opium,  or  that  they  get  through  the  use  of  it,  leaves 
them  quite  soon.  Most  prison  authorities  who  come  in  contact 
chiefly  with  the  underworld  addict,  believe  that  there  is  no  cure 
for  drug  addiction  as  long  as  the  addict  can  procure  the  drug  again 
when  he  leaves  the  institution.  Of  course,  questions  of  tempera- 
m.ent,  personality,  and  environment  enter  into  the  matter  to  som.e 
extent.  I know  that  some  of  these  men  who  are  discharged  from 
our  institution  after  being  taken  off  the  drug  and  have  not  used  it 
for  some  time,  do  not  immediately  go  back,  and  it  is  possible  that 
there  are  even  some  who  never  go  back;  but  our  records  and  ex- 
perience show  that  the  prognosis  is  very  poor,  especially  if  the  addict 
has  been  using  drugs  for  any  considerable  time  or  in  quantity  or 
goes  back  to  his  old  environment.  This  prognosis,  however,  does 
not  apply  to  the  same  extent  to  people  who,  in  the  better  walks  of 
life,  have  financial  means  with  which  to  take  care  of  themselves. 
In  those  cases  there  are  permanent  cures,  particularly  if  the  drug 
addiction  is  not  of  too  long  duration,  or  too  deep  seated,  that  family 
or  other  troubles  do  not  produce  a mental  state  in  which  the  person 
will  say  to  himself  “what’s  the  use’’  and  return  to  drugs  as  a tem- 
porary relief.  The  term  “permanent  cure”  is  rather  misleading,  as 
any  former  addict  might  return  to  opiate  addiction  under  unfavorable 
conditions.  Undoubtedly  some  do  not. 

Our  treatment  or  “ cure  ” consists  of  taking  the  addict  off  the  drug 
by  the  gradual  reduction  method,  and  by  elimination  as  fast  as  pos- 
sible of  the  poison  within  his  body.  He  is  then  built  up  by  the 
administration  of  proper  food  and  light  exercise  or  work  until  he 
returns  to  good  physical  shape.  Whenever  his  case  is  complicated 
by  other  disease,  that  disease  is  also  treated. 

Another  phase  of  drug  addiction  is  this : Up  to  the  present  time  we 
have  only  looked  at  it  from  several  angles,  and  there  is  a great  deal 
from  a medical  standpoint  that  we  do  not  know  at  the  present  time. 
I have  always  felt  that  there  should  be  more  complete  study  and 
research  work  by  the  medical  profession  along  the  lines  of  the  work 
being  done  at  the  Rockefeller  Institute  for  certain  diseases,  and  also 
at  Johns  Hopkins. 

Mr.  Porter.  I have  been  working  on  a plan  of  this  kind  for  a long 
time.  It  is  based  on  the  principle  that  it  is  comparatively  useless  to 
effect  a cure  of  an  addict  and  allow  him  to  return  to  his  old  environ- 
ment, and  without  full  opportunity  to  recover  his  mental  and 
physical  strength.  The  result  of  most  careful  investigation  has  con- 
vinced me  that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  addicts  acquire  the 
habit  through  unskillful  medication  and  the  recklessness  of  use;  that 
the  element  of  viciousness  seldom  enters  into  the  matter.  The  better 
opinion  seems  to  be  that  they  are  victims  of  an  acute  disease  which 
finally  becomes  chronic  and  that  they  should  receive  the  same  treat- 
ment as  a person  suffering  from  any  other  malady,  such  as  tubercu- 
losis or  typhoid  fever;  that  there  should  be  two  institutions  main- 
tained, one  where  the  addict  can  go  volimtarily,  the  other  where  he 
can  be  sent  by  order  of  court,  where  these  unfortunates  can  be  prop- 
erly cared  for. 


52 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


As  matters  now  stand,  no  matter  how  earnestly  and  sincerely  an 
addict  may  desire  to  be  cured  of  his  malady,  he  has  no  place  to  go  to 
secure  the  necessary  restraint  except  to  a penitentiary,  jail,  or  work- 
house,  where  the  confinement,  instead  of  building  him  up  physically 
so  as  to  throw  off  the  craving  for  the  drug,  has  a tendency  to  increase 
the  craving  by  the  debilitation  due  to  such  confienment. 

Mr.  Brewster.  You  are  speaking  now  of  the  noncriminal  type? 

Mr.  Porter.  Yes. 

Mr.  Brewster.  I believe  what  you  have  said  is  absolutely  correct. 
The  question  will  never  be  entirely  settled  until  there  is  a limitation 
on  the  production  of  opium  by  international  agreement,  and  even 
then,  the  opium  and  its  various  derivatives  will  have  to  be  put  under 
Government  control  to  see  that  it  gets  into  the  proper  hands.  That 
is,  limitation  as  to  the  quantity  peeded  for  medicinal  and  scientific 
purposes.'  In  my  opinion,  although  heroin  may  have  some  medicinal 
value,  there  are  other  drugs  which  can  be  used  which  are  not  habit- 
forming drugs;  and  the  slight  use  to  which  heroin  might  be  put  is 
counterbalanced  a hundred  or.  even  a thousand  times  by  the  harm 
it  does  and  the  vicious  results  of  its  use. 

It  is-  my  opinion  that  the  manufacture  of  heroin  should  be  prohib- 
ited and  prevented  by  law  and  that  most  stringent  efforts  should  be 
made  to  keep  it  from  being  smuggled  into  this  country.  I would 
also  recommend  that  more  severe  laws  be  enacted  throughout  the 
country  to  punish  drug  peddlers  and  drug  smugglers,  or  anyone  from 
manufacturing  narcotics  drugs  illegally.  At  the  present  - time  in 
New  York  State,  in  the  cases  that  come  to  us  for  selling  drugs,  they 
only  get  a sentence  of  not  over  three  years,  which  usually  means 
that  they  are  discharged  at  the  end  of  2 or  2^  years,  and  sometimes 
less.  These  persons  should  get,  in  my  opinion,  a sentence  of  from 
10  to  20  years.  After  all,  a man  who  deliberately  sells  drugs  for  the 
purpose  of  making  money  does  so  with  full  knowledge  of  the  fact 
that  he  will  cause  the  death  and  moreover  the  degradation  of  many 
people,  and  he  should  be  classed  as  a murderer.  In  addition  to 
relentless  prosecutions  of  violators  of  the  drug  laws,  more  stringent 
laws — and  long  sentences  for  drug  peddlers,  a campaign  of  education 
should  also  be  inaugurated.  A large  amount  of  research  work 
should  be  done  by  chemists,  and  the  medical  profession  to  clear  up 
many  points  not  understood  or  are  subjects  of  controversy  at  the 
present  time.  The  certainty  of  a heavy  penalty  if  caught  would 
undoubtedly  deter  the  drug  peddler  from  seeking  new  customers  as 
he  now  does  in  a brazen  manner. 

(Mr.  Brewster  submitted  the  following:) 

DEPARTMENT  OP  CORRECTION,  NEW  YORK  CITY 

Data  in  regard  to  persons  committed  to  our  institutions  in  connection  with  drug 

addiction 


Received  from  courts  (males) 2,  349 

Received  from  courts  (females) 314 

Total 2,  663 


Note. — This  includes  1,292  persons  committed  to  the  workhouse,  the  balance 
of  the  cases  being  committed  to  the  penitentiary  and  the  New  York  City  Reform- 
atory and  city  prisons. 

■ Drug  addicts  convicted  of  felonies  and  transferred  to  Sing  Sing  Prison  or  the 
New  York  State  Reformatory  at  Elmira  and  Federal  eases  are  not  included  in 
the  above  figures. 


PROHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


53 


Table  1. — Showing  the  number  of  persons  received  at  the  workhouse,  W.  I.,  during 
the  year  1923,  wider  sections  133  and  135,  Sanitary  Code,  showing  the  number 
received  each  month 


Men 

Women 

Total, 
sections 
133  and 
135 

Section 

133 

Section 

135 

Section 

133 

Section 

135 

January _ . 

55 

48 

12 

5 

120 

February 

67 

30 

18 

8 

123 

March _ . . . 

106 

37 

14 

3 

160 

April 

75 

15 

4 

2 

96 

May.- --- 

55 

32 

7 

5 

99 

June 

66 

28 

9 

4 

107 

July.. 

52 

29 

3 

91 

August - 

48 

36 

23 

8 

115 

September 

40 

39 

5 

6 

90 

October 

54 

25 

12 

2 

93 

November ...... 

27 

17 

5 

103 

December  

52 

24 

14 

6 

95 

723 

370 

142 

57 

1,292 

Table  2. — Showing  the  number  of  persons  received  at  the  workhouse,  W.  I., 
. during  the  year  1923,  for  drug  treatment  under  section  135,  Sanitary  Code  (self- 
committed  for  cure),  and  under  section  133,  Sanitary  Code  (possessing  or  selling 
drugs),  and  the  number  of  previous  sentences  each  had  served  in  one  of  our  insti- 
tutions for  various  offenses 

[1,292  were  received — 1,093  men,  199  women] 

The  following  table  shows  that  over  70  per  cent  have  previous  records: 


Men 

Women 

Total 

Total, 
sections 
133  and 
135 

Sec- 
tion 135 

Sec- 
tion 133 

Sec- 
tion 135 

Sec- 
tion 133 

Sec- 
tion 135 

Sec- 
tion 133 

Received... 

370 

723 

57 

142 

427 

■ 865 

1,292 

First  time ; ...  ... 

101 

235 

13 

32 

114 

267 

381 

Identified  '... 

269 

488 

44 

110 

313 

598 

911 

Second  time  ...  

70 

164 

8 

28 

78 

192 

270 

Third  time..  . ... 

61 

120 

8 

20 

69 

140 

209 

Fourth  time.  = .. 

37 

77 

7 

11 

44 

88 

132 

Fifth  time . ... 

30 

48 

5 

12 

35 

60 

95 

Sixth  time . ... 

27 

39 

15 

31 

54 

85 

Seventh  time 

15 

17 

3 

7 

18 

24 

42 

Eighth  time ... 

11 

10 

2 

8 

13 

18 

31 

Ninth  time... ... 

11 

7 

1 

3 

12 

10 

22 

Tenth  time 

3 

1 

2 

5 

1 

6 

Eleventh  time ...  ... 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

4 

6 

Twelfth  time.  ...  . 

3 

2 

1 

3 

3 

6 

Thirteenth  time  ... 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

Fourteenth  time..  ...  . ...  . .. 

1 

1 

1 

Fifteenth  time  .....  ....  ...  . 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

Eighteenth  time *....: 

1 

1 

1 

Twentieth  time  . ...  ...  . .. 

1 

1 

1 

Total .......  . 

269 

488 

44 

110 

313 

598 

911 

Repeat  (per  cent) 

73 

68 

71 

73 

69 

71 

' Total  identified  more  than  once,  though  not  in  same  year. 


54 


PBOHIBITING  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  OPIUM 


Table  3. — Showing  the  number  of  persons  received  at  the  workhouse,  W.  I.,  during 
the  year  1923,  for  drug  treatment  under  section  135,  Sanitary  Code  {self-committed 
addicts  for  cure),  also  showing  the  rhumber  of  times  each  had  been  received  at  one 
of  our  institutions  for  cures,  possessing  or  selling  drugs,  or  for  other  offenses, 
misdemeanor,  and  felony 


(427  persons  were  received — 370  men,  tu  women] 


Number 
having 
received 
cures  and 
number  of 
cures  each 
has  received 

Number 

having 

served 

previous 

sentences 

for 

possessing 
or  selling 
under 
sec.  133 

Number 
having 
served 
previous 
sentences 
for  offenses 
other  than 
drugs,  mis- 
demeanor, 
and  felony 

First  time...  ........ 

210 

115 

Second  time..  . . . 

114 

40 

29 

Third  time . . 

48 

6 

23 

Fourth  time 

31 

9 

13 

Fifth  time .... 

10 

5 

Sixth  time . . 

9 

1 

Seventh  time . . ... 

5 

1 

Eighth  time .... 

in 

Ninth  time  ...  . . 

1 

Twelfth  time.  

1 

Thirteenth  time 

1 

Sixteenth  time 

1 

Total 

1 427 

2 176 

^ 167 

> Of  the  427  shown  as  self-committed  drug  addicts,  210  received  the  cure  the  first  time,  217  recei-ed  the 
cure  two  or  more  times,  aggregating  845  cures  at  an  approximate  cost  of  $253,,500  to  this  city  alone  for  cures, 
we  having  no  knowledge  of  cures  taken  elsewhere, 

* Of  the  same  427  shown  as  self-committed  drug  addicts,  176  have  served  previous  sentences  for  possessing 
or  selling  drugs,  aggregating  280  sentences. 

3 Of  the  same  427  shown  as  self-committed  drug  addicts,  167  have  served  previous  sentences  for  offenses 
other  than  drugs  (misdemeanor  or  felony),  aggregating  438  sentences. 

■Vote.— Over  70  per  cent  of  all  drug  addicts  have  had  previous  instutitional  experiences. 


Table  4. — Showing  the  number  of  persons  received  at  the  workhouse,  W.  I.,  during 
the  year  1923,  under  section  133,  Sanitary  Code  (possessing  or  selling  drugs), 
also  showing  the  number  of  times  each  had  been  received  at  one  of  our  institutions 
for  cures,  possessing  or  selling,  or  for  other  offenses,  misdemeanor,  or  felony 


[865  persons  were  received — 723  men,  142  women] 


Number 
received 
under  sec. 

133  and 
number  of 
times  each 
had  served 
for  same 
offense 

Number 
having 
received 
cures 
previous 
and  cures 
each  has 
received 

Number 
having 
served 
previous 
sentences 
for  offenses 
other  than 
drugs  mis- 
demeanor, 
and  felony 

484 

185 

151 

232 

79 

96 

13 

32 

30 

3 

32 

19 

1 

13 

2 

1 

11 

1 

3 

Eighth  time..  . 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Nineteenth  time  . - - - 

i 

‘ 865 

2 260 

» 327 

> Of  the  865  committed  under  sec.  133,  Sanitary  Code  (possessing  or  selling),  about  half  have  served 
previous  sentences  for  the  same  offense,  aggregating  1,479  sentences. 

2 Of  the  same  865  committed  under  sec.  133,  Sanitary  Code  (possessing  or  selling),  250  have  received 
the  cure  previous,  the  number  of  cures  aggregating  361  at  the  approximate  cost  of  $108,300  to  the  city,  we 
having  no  knowledge  of  cures  taken  elsewhere, 

3 Of  the  same  865  committed  under  sec.  133,  Sanitary  Code  (possessing  or  selling),  327  have  served  pre- 
vious sentences  for  offenses  other  than  drugs  (misdemeanor  or  felony)  aggregating  756  sentences. 


Note.— 70  per  cent  of  these  also  show  previous  institutional  experiences. 


PKOHIBITIKG  THE  IMPOKTATION  OF  OPIUM 


55 


To  give  an  idea  of  the  individual  record  and  the  offenses  for  which  these  self- 
committed  addicts  are  received,  I show  a few  cases  in  brief,  as  case  No.  139738 — 
first  time  received  for  felony;  second,  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  times  received  for 
misdemeanor,  etc. 

Case  No.  139738,  7 times:  First  time  for  felony,  second,  third,  fourth,  and  fifth 
times  for  misdemeanor,  sixth  time  for  possession,  seventh  time  for  cure. 

Case  No.  81778,  10  times:  First,  second,  third,  and  fourth  times  for  cure,  fifth 
time  for  felony,  sixth  and  seventh  times  for  cure,  eighth  time  for  possession, 
ninth  time  for  felony,  tenth  time  for  cure. 

Case  No.  92231,  11  times:  First  and  second  times  for  misdemeanor,  third  time 
for  felony,  fourth  and  fifth  times  for  possession,  sixth  time  for  misdemeanor, 
seventh  time  for  possession,  eighth  and  ninth  times  for  cure,  tenth  time  for 
possession,  eleventh  time  for  cure. 

Case  No.  68573,  8 times:  First  time  for  possession,  second  time  for  felony, 
third  and  fourth  times  for  cure,  fifth  and  si.xth  times  for  felonj'^,  seventh  time 
for  possession,  eighth  time  for  cure. 

Case  No.  81778,  11  times:  First  time  for  possession,  second,  third  and  fourth 
times  for  cure,  fifth  time  for  misdemeanor,  sixth  and  seventh  times  for  cure, 
eighth  time  for  possession,  ninth  time  for  misdemeanor,  tenth  time  for  cure, 
eleventh  time  for  possession. 

Case  No.  80921,  9 times:  First,  second  and  third  times  for  cure,  fourth  and 
fifth  times  for  misdemeanor,  sixth  time  for  possession,  seventh  time  for  mis- 
demeanor, eighth  and  ninth  times  for  cure. 

Case  No.  63185',  9 times:  First  and  second  times  for  misdemeanor,  third, 
fourth  and  fifth  times  for  cure,  sixth  time  for  misdemeanor,  seventh  time  for 
cure,  eighth  time  for  possession,  ninth  time  for  cure. 

Case  No.  76037,  9 times:  first  time  for  misdemeanor,  second  time  for  posses- 
sion, third  and  fourth  times  for  misdemeanor,  fifth  and  sixth  times  for  cure, 
seventh  and  eighth  times  for  possession,  ninth  time  for  cure. 

Case  No.  91604,  10  times:  First,  second,  third  and  fourth  times  for  cure, 
fifth  time  for  misdemeanor,  sixth  time  for  cure,  seventh  and  eighth  times  for 
misdemeanor,  ninth  and  tenth  times  for  cure. 

The  above  are  just  a few  cases  picked  at  random.  We  have  hundreds  of 
similar  cases. 

(Whereupon  the  committee  adjourned.) 


X 


V 


o<-  ; ''n'i-i  I'  ) ''''."rr:T;iu‘j,wi  u-.r;  ..irnaiiWK'^  ■ ,, . 

Jt;  ?if:Ofli  s-'jti)! '<■  ■ly':' ‘nii  I-.’«-;.1C  'liOl'lvi!  i : '■  ft  1;  >■';  ;;j;0/(^o’i' 

!>•  ' 1 it  :h'-'r'  'Xf'il  hi;;;  ,i'!,"5!  o;  - > ■ ‘ifi>  ' ■.•■  '■  -'niiit.  ic-iit 

•OTfr')  •(i)ll  'iH'ii  dti  j .■  >-!■  ^ -i.  ; -lOiiil.t 

■■  rfllil  fol  ’’ytij--  !'  ''(.b  Mr  .•  ""i  • h v^'i.‘ 

^ 'h  ' /nir-  -i-')  ■;::in:i  ,'■:;■?;•>  •'*  • h;:h  ''  . , /■<■■■>'>  ’o)  ■''.'Hti 

_ ..•|•(|lo  •!■.;  • .'j  ’Uror  ^ 

• ,h.-‘fd  liliji;  ’h>  li^  'H>i  - '■■■>.  I'.fievi  ;,'l  ; -.n’'  : ' . ' .C, 

iiiril  f'txia ■ r.rioh-  . ; , ; h,'; 

f'niij  -Irrtt  iol  rfhiiu  '■  .k.  h-  - . ’ .h  ■ . wro -‘W  ' 

, ■ ; • , , . . ' ■ ' mJ  i‘  h'f  ,:  !■!> 

(■i/ioj!)'!  'Ih’i  li.'li)  ’ ■■.!  ;l  ,■>/“.  j'iiO  : 

(iriiMV'lii  .-rfiiHrl  )•,/!:  >■  ':  ■ '‘^'(1  s’liii;  ‘>.8  h hf#  ^ 

• , , , ' i-h  .'  .fv  v>l- ' 

iLt-iiiiil  l i s:  biiii>  ,[>(!:,•'■■■  ■<(  i..!  -jirhi  iR-ji' ' r^^dfsit  J j 7’' Li*  .•  ■>' 

,37)1 '-Sol  f.sjfrij  (l)iiOV  ji-  f:!'.-',  li'  i ■'  ‘ii ^'>f;r,)h.'i;j-(  ■ ' .rHcit  ilt^l  ,•'•  iii  i “r  ‘t  r.'imff 
■ lol  itinlJ  difiai  hi'I  'inii  i*!.'.  n.-.!  "■V'oc,!  .ol  3i'ii)  ([■ilrv-i 

_ ' -■■■]  -nilil  dtnj-rif'-y 

. )!!•;)!(>')  . niC'  1^1}  -'ijtiiit  (■•'Ih*  .’  (i, .n-i,  . 1 ■ ; ; <lt  Q ,IL‘00/  .oi'  i-;;  ')  -j 

.'yshll  tn'l  ‘luff)  ilf:r</0^  .flib; ; /j  ; lot  •ii;i;t  di/j,  ,'1;  fll';)  ..-ioi  10l  Milit 

' ^ •[!/■}  ' .,(ir  ';  ifl  ho/i 

.(1  j<  r-ifiMlMifn  luL  i-iiij  biH  -ii;  Lui!-.  I'-'i'l  0 , T, s' M'l  3 

- 10^  -nttit  . i' ■- i(‘i  ji •1  ')irrit  i!*;  !.  /yiin  ^<  lijift  hriii  (ft  itrolL  « 

‘ •■nn- T-i  hit  , <( -I, fjij- 

- T(/1  'JiJiir  f'lid'i'j;'  .■■  ii.'/iiu-iF. rli'T  -t;)'}  yntlt  i'.-iii  U ,T!;0f)7  .oX 

V"'  ',37](‘)  111-  s’wtij  ’'ty'-.  Ini,;  d '1(1  .•  oKfi'iinfll  .-,,,1  -jot  Vomij  ilhanl  l>i!,;  Iniil  * ,nnia 
j;  , ’'  .‘nri'i  Tti' odiit  ijfniii  ir.';ei^’-i«oii  n.j't  iiomit  dlila"  f»n«  i.'Ji;')  ,'oh  ^ 

^ .371)3  iii\  a'liuit  h.  I,  Inif't  Jvrrl  ;B.'jiuit ,L} t .^Oi’K;  .oZ  -.''m'! 

Hit  w.'iiii  ifiriHro  bitf..  ' 3-  .oi()3  ■(•d  Oiriif  lirxii:  , louitoiiWlwii.i  loi  9mil  iljitb 

.,'1^  _ .31"  ) ■; 't -iainii  litn'iJ  Sftii  dLniir  ,nMiiiiOfn'jI)?i(i(  'd 

!<“  'I)3il)ifi  ii  3v/rn  ;>7/  .,iioi;i)j:i  Ja  l'3d‘)h{  v/'*'!  a i^ui  oia  svnthi  ml'T  jM 

.siosifi.o  iisi  imia 

l.h^iDUoi  '-K  ooi  l (ir.qiJ'n  j/'17/ 1 9 


1 


§ 

' j 

la 

Aij 


